taking a critical step on the way to … · fle students in an advanced reading and writing course...
TRANSCRIPT
TAKING A CRITICAL STEP ON THE WAY TO CRITICAL READING:
INVESTIGATION INTO CRITICAL READING DISCOURSE OF FRESHMAN
FLE STUDENTS IN AN ADVANCED READING AND WRITING COURSE
GÖZDE BALIKÇI
JUNE 2012
TAKING A CRITICAL STEP ON THE WAY TO CRITICAL READING:
INVESTIGATION INTO CRITICAL READING DISCOURSE OF FRESHMAN
FLE STUDENTS IN AN ADVANCED READING AND WRITING COURSE
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
GÖZDE BALIKÇI
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS
IN
THE DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
JUNE 2012
iii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last Name : Gözde Balıkçı
Signature :
iv
ABSTRACT
TAKING A CRITICAL STEP ON THE WAY TO CRITICAL READING:
INVESTIGATION INTO CRITICAL READING DISCOURSE OF FRESHMAN FLE
STUDENTS IN AN ADVANCED READING AND WRITING COURSE
Balıkçı, Gözde
M.A. , Department of Foreign Language Education
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Daloğlu
June 2012, 150 pages
This case study is conducted in order to observe and investigate the critical reading
discourse of twenty seven freshman pre service teachers of English at the department of
foreign language teaching at METU. In addition, it attempts to answer the question how
the critical reading discourse of the students’ are shaped through feedback, instruction
and time. The extensive data (both written and audio-visual data) is collected in the
Advanced Reading and Writing I and II courses which are offered to the first year
students at the FLE department. The results of the analysis of the data indicate that the
critical reading discourse of the freshman pre-service teachers of English at METU
involves interpretive, evaluative and responsive discourse. Evaluative discourse is found
to be limited in students’ written work and discussions when compared to interpretive
and responsive discourse. The students also usually tend to evaluate the content of the
v
texts rather than form of them. It is also found that instruction on academic writing
foster critical thinking but it is not sufficient to encourage critical reading.
Keywords: Foreign language reading, Critical reading, Pre-service teachers of English
vi
ÖZ
ELEŞTİREL OKUMA YOLUNDA ÖNEMLİ BİR ADIM: İNGİLİZCE
ÖĞRETMENLİĞİ BİRİNCİ SINIF ÖĞRENCİLERİNİN ELEŞTİREL OKUMA
BECERİLERİNİN İLERİ OKUMA VE YAZMA DERSİ BAĞLAMINDA
İNCELENMESİ
Balıkçı, Gözde
Yüksek Lisans, Yabancı Diller Eğitimi Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi : Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Daloğlu
Haziran 2012, 150 sayfa
Bu çalışma ODTÜ Yabancı Diller Eğitimi İngilizce Öğretmenliği Bölümünde öğrenim
gören yirmi yedi birinci sınıf öğrencisinin eleştirel okuma becerilerini gözlemek ve
araştırmak için yapılmıştır. Bunun yanı sıra; geri dönüt, eğitim ve zamanın da
öğrencilerin eleştirel okuma becerilerini nasıl şekillendirdiği araştırılmıştır. Veriler hem
yazılı hem de derslerin kamera çekimleri olmak üzere Yabancı Diller Eğitimi
Bölümünde birinci sınıf öğrencilerinin aldığı İleri Okuma ve Yazma I ve II derslerinden
toplanmıştır. Verilerin analizi öğrencilerin eleştirel okumasının yorumlayıcı,
değerlendirici ve tepkisel bağlamdan oluştuğunu göstermiştir. Değerlendirici bağlam
diğer bağlamlara kıyasla öğrencilerin yazılı ve sözlü performanslarında kısıtlı
bulunmuştur. Ayrıca öğrenciler metinlerin içeriklerini biçimlerinden daha fazla
vii
değerlendirdikleri görülmüştür. Akademik yazma eğitimin eleştirel okumadan çok
eleştirel düşünceyi geliştirdiği de bulgular arasındadır.
Anahtar Kelimeler :Yabancı dilde Okuma, Eleştirel Okuma, İngilizce Öğretmenliği
öğrencileri
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is a pleasure to thank those who made this thesis possible. First of all, I owe my
deepest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Ayşegül Daloğlu for her guidance, feedback
and support during this long process. I am indebted to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Joshua Bear who
always found and sent to me the most relevant and current articles which helped me to
form the theoretical base of this thesis. Yasemin Tezgiden was the instructor of the
Advanced Reading and Writing Course in which I collected the data for the thesis.
Without her cooperation and tolerance, I would not have written this thesis. I am grateful
to my colleague and friend Zeynep Ölçü who helped me with the research questions and
design of the study. We had long and fruitful discussions which contributed a lot to this
thesis. Although my friend Sinem Sonsaat is in the United States, I have never felt her
absence. She sent me the articles immediately whenever I needed and she always
encouraged me not to give up. I would like to my colleague and friend Mehmet Akkuş
for his guidance and help. My colleague and friend Ufuk Ataş, who was also writing his
own thesis at the same time, gave me the power and support to continue writing the
thesis. I am most grateful to Gülden Taner who was always with me during this long
process. She helped me to analyze the extensive data, cope up with the technical
problems related to the computer. Without her support , I could not have written this
thesis.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLAGIARISM..........................................................................................................iii
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iv
ÖZ ............................................................................................................................. vi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................. xiv
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................ xv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................ xvi
CHAPTERS
1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
1.1. Presentation .......................................................................................... 1
1.2 Background to the Study ....................................................................... 1
1.3. Research Questions ............................................................................... 5
1.4. Purpose and Scope of the Study ........................................................... 6
1.5. Significance of the Study ...................................................................... 6
1.6. Overview of Methodology .................................................................... 7
1.7 Overview of Analytical Procedures ...................................................... 8
1.8. Limitations of the Study ....................................................................... 8
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................... 9
2.1. Introduction ........................................................................................... 9
2.2. Critical Approaches .............................................................................. 9
2.2.1. The Critical Theory of Frankfurt School ..................................... 9
2.2.2. The Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Reading
the Word and the World ............................................................ 10
2.2.3. Current Perspectives on the Meaning of Critical ...................... 16
2.3. Critical Literacy, Critical Reading and Thinking ............................... 19
x
2.3.1. Integrating Critical Literacy into Classroom ............................. 28
2.3.2. Studies on Critical Literacy in Education .................................. 32
2.3.3. Studies in EFL and ESL Contexts ............................................. 35
3. METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND
INTERPRETATION .................................................................................... 50
3.1. Presentation ......................................................................................... 50
3.2. Research Questions ............................................................................. 50
3.3. Design of the Study ............................................................................. 51
3.4. Setting ................................................................................................. 52
3.4.1. FLE 135 and FLE 136 ............................................................... 52
3.4.1.1. Classroom materials: Extensive Reading Pack ................ 53
3.4.2. The participants: The students ................................................... 54
3.5. Data Collection Procedure ................................................................. 56
3.5.1. Data Collection Tools ................................................................ 56
3.5.1.1. Observation and Video Recordings .................................. 56
3.5.1.2. Reading Journals ............................................................... 57
3.6. Data Analysis Procedure ..................................................................... 59
3.6.1. The Critical Reading Discourse Framework ............................... 60
3.6. The Researcher’s Role ........................................................................ 66
4. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS .......................................................... 69
4.1. Presentation ......................................................................................... 69
4.2. The Analysis of the Journals ............................................................... 70
4.2.1. The General Characteristics of Reading Journals ..................... 70
4.2.2. The Results of the Analysis of Interpretive Discourse
in Reading Journals ................................................................... 71
4.2.2.1. Detecting Main Argument ............................................... 72
4.2.2.2. Detecting Evidence of the Writer .................................... 74
4.2.2.3. Understanding the Purpose of the Writer ......................... 75
4.2.2.4. Understanding the Hidden Agenda of the Writer ............ 76
xi
4.2.2.5. Being Aware of the Target Audience .............................. 77
4.2.2.6. Being Aware of the Context of the Text .......................... 78
4.2.3. The Results of the Analysis of Evaluative Discourse
in the Reading Journals ............................................................. 79
4.2.3.1. Evaluating the Writer’s Refutations ................................. 79
4.2.3.2. Evaluating the Writer’s Justifications .............................. 79
4.2.3.3. Evaluating the Language of the Writer ............................ 80
4.2.3.4. Evaluating the Tone of the Writer ................................... 81
4.2.3.5. Deciding Whether the Writer Disrupted
the Commonplace ............................................................ 81
4.2.3.6. Deciding Whether the Writer Considered Multiple
Viewpoints ....................................................................... 82
4.2.3.7. Deciding Whether the Writer Focused on the
Socio-Political Issues ...................................................... 82
4.2.3.8. Deciding Whether the Writer Suggested A Solution ....... 82
4.2.3.9. Making Overall Evaluation .............................................. 83
4.2.4. Analysis of the Responsive Discourse in Reading Journals ...... 83
4.2.4.1. Developing Counter Arguments and Giving
Logical Reasons for Them ............................................... 84
4.2.4.2. Developing Supporting Arguments and Giving Logical
Reasons for Them ............................................................ 84
4.2.4.3. Disrupting the Commonplace .......................................... 85
4.2.4.4. Considering Multiple Viewpoints .................................... 85
4.2.4.5. Focusing On Socio-Political Issues ................................. 86
4.2.4.6. Suggesting a Solution ...................................................... 87
4.3. The Discussion of The Research Questions ....................................... 87
4.3.1. The Extent of The CRD in The Reading Journals ..................... 87
4.3.2. The CRD through Feedback and Instruction ............................. 90
4.3.3. The Nature of CRD .................................................................. 92
xii
4.3.3.1. Interpretive, Evaluative and Responsive Discourse ......... 92
4.4. The Whole Class Discussions ............................................................. 93
4.4.1. General Characteristics of Discussions ..................................... 93
4.4.2. The School is Bad For Children ................................................ 94
4.4.3. The Teacher Who Changed My Life ......................................... 97
4.5. Summary of the Results.........................................................................100
5. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 103
5.1. Presentation ....................................................................................... 103
5.2. Discussion of the Results .................................................................. 103
5.2.1. The Effect of Instruction and Feedback
on Critical Reading .................................................................. 105
5.2.2. The Effect of Academic Writing Instruction
on Critical Reading………………………………………….....107
5.2.3. The Wash back Effect of Testing System of Turkish
Educational System ................................................................. 108
5.3. Implications ...................................................................................... 110
5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research .......................... 111
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 113
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 118
Appendix A: FLE 135 Course Outline ........................................................... 118
Appendix B: FLE 136 Course Outline ............................................................ 124
Appendix C: FLE 135 Guidelines for Reading Journal .................................. 130
Appendix D: FLE 135 Guidelines for Reading Journal .................................. 134
Appendix E: Guiding Questions for In-Class Reading Texts ........................ 139
Appendix F: FLE 135 Reading Journal Rubric ............................................. 140
Appendix G: The Students’ Performances in the Whole Class Discussions
According to the Critical Reading Discourse Framework ......... 142
Appendix H: The Critical Reading Discourse (CRD) Framework for the
Reading Journals ........................................................................ 143
xiii
Appendix I: A Sample of the Performance of Student 13 according to Critical
Reading Discourse Framework .................................................. 144
Appendix J: The Scores of the Students’ Performances on Critical Reading
Discourse Framework ................................................................ 145
Appendix K: The Content of the Extensive Reading Pack in the Fall
Term ........................................................................................... 146
Appendix L: The Content of the Extensive Reading Pack in the Spring
Term ........................................................................................... 147
Appendix M: The First Version of the Critical Reading Framework ............. 149
Appendix N: Tez Fotokopi İzin Formu .......................................................... 150
xiv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLES
Table 2.1. The Critical Reading versus Critical Literacy ........................................ 22
Table 2.2. The Four Dimensions of the Critical Reading ........................................ 37
Table 3.1. Courses Offered for Freshman Students at the Department of FLE ....... 55
Table 3.2. Time Schedule for the Data Collection and Analysis ............................. 68
Table 4.1. Interpretive Discourse Emerged from the CRD Journals ...................... 88
Table 4.2. Evaluative Discourse Emerged from the CRD Journals ........................ 89
Table 4.3. Responsive Discourse Emerged from the CRD Journals....................... 90
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Range of Critical Reading Processes ..................................................... 23
Figure 2.2 Key Elements of Argumentation ........................................................... 27
Figure 2.3 The Useful Questions to Promote Critical Reading .............................. 34
Figure 2.4 Three Discourses of Critical Reading ................................................... 43
Figure 3.1 Three Discoures of Critical Reading .................................................... 61
xvi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CDA Critical Discourse Analysis
CRD Critical Reading Discourse
EFL English as a Foreign Language
ELT English Language Teaching
ESL English as a Second Language
FLE Foreign Language Education
METU Middle East Technical University
OSS Ogrenci Seçme Sınavı
YDS Yabanci Dil Sinavı
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“Literacy was a double-edged sword; it could be wielded for the purpose of self and social empowerment or for the perpetuation of relations of repression and domination.” (Gramsci, 1987)
1.1 Presentation
This chapter will provide a brief overview of the background of the study, along with the
statement of purpose and research questions, significance of the study, methodology and
analysis procedure. At the end of the chapter, limitations of the study will be provided.
1.2 Background to the Study
Reading, either first or second/foreign language has been a social, complex and
interactive process which every person must go through almost every day for various
reasons. One of the most general reasons for reading may be the need to be a part of a
particular society. Members of any society need to cope with the demands of the society
and keep up with it as well. The most basic requirement of most of the societies has
always been to enrol in a school whose first function is to teach and promote literacy
2
among its members. Richard Shaull (1970) claims that schooling is not neutral and this
practice may vary among different societies. He puts forward the idea that:
There is no such thing as a neutral educational process. Education either
functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate the integration of the
younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about
conformity to it, or it becomes “the practice of freedom”, the means by which
men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to
participate in the transformation of their world” (p. 15).
Therefore, every member of a particular society must keep in mind that their schooling
process may be under the effect of dominant ideology adopted by that society at a
particular time.
In addition to schooling, the use of language in a particular society, can affect, dominate
and manipulate the people in intended ways and can help the maintenance of the power
of the authorities.
Therefore, need for a critical stance towards the education and language has always been
felt. Freire (1970) who can be considered one of the first critical educators has named
this maintenance of domination “oppression” and argued that oppressors who have
power in the society make use of science and technology to maintain their dominance
over the other people.
In order to be aware of this, there is a dire need to have a critical stance towards these
practices which can be hard to observe and detect most of the time. As a result, the
schools should also be responsible for encouraging and facilitating a critical stance
towards authority, especially towards dominance and in Freirean words, oppression.
3
Literacy, in this regard, becomes more important. It was usually thought that if one
could read and show that s/he understood- which was usually checked with the help of
comprehension questions-, s/he was a literate person. This was also due to the perception
that reading was just a cognitive skill which was “the ability to derive understanding
from written text” (Grabe, 2002, p.51).
However, Freire and Macedo (1987) have emphasised that
Reading does not consist merely of decoding the written word or language;
rather it is preceded by and intertwined with knowledge of the world. Language
and reality are dynamically interconnected. The understanding attained by
critical reading of a text implies perceiving the relationship between text and
context. (p.20)
For Freire, educators should view the reading as a way to promote emancipation and
empowerment of the people who are dominated and manipulated by the people who
have power. Freire wrote his influential book Pedagogy of the Oppressed” in 1970 after
working with very poor adult workers who were faced with the oppression and he taught
them to read and write along with how to empower themselves by reading and writing.
Although, people were very poor and they were forced to work in very bad conditions in
Freire’s context, this emancipatory literacy has always been indispensable for everybody
regardless of their social status, age, gender or race.
The need for being critical has also been visible in second/foreign language reading.
Catherine Wallace (1992) calling EFL readers as marginalized readers, has claimed that;
Their goals in interacting with written texts are perceived to be primarily those
of language learners. What is missing is; an attempt to place reading activity
4
and written texts in a social context, the use of texts which are provocative and
a methodology for interpreting texts which addresses ideological assumptions
as well as propositional meaning” (Wallace, 1992, p. 62).
In addition, Wallace (1992) claims that interaction between the text and foreign
language reader is not equal, no matter how interactive the reading is. For Wallace it is
due to the fact that foreign language learners do not dare to challenge texts.
One of the reasons of this can be that foreign language learners make use of the texts to
learn the language itself. Texts may be considered as a source of new vocabulary and
inductive grammar teaching. Therefore, the instructors may ignore to encourage students
to question the text with a critical perspective.
This study will focus on the advanced learners of English who are also the freshman pre-
service teachers of English at the department of Foreign Language Education (FLE).
Generally, students are offered Advanced Reading and Writing courses (generally one in
fall, the other in spring semester) in their first years at the ELT departments in Turkey.
The main goals of these courses are to develop higher order reading, writing and
thinking skills in the target language, to introduce different types of texts, to foster
extensive reading among the students, to help them produce different types of essays and
to develop basic research skills.
Within the scope of the Advanced Reading and Writing Course offered at the
department of FLE at Middle East Technical University (METU), the critical reading
discourse emerged in the students’ written work and whole class discussions are
5
analysed and investigated in order to observe the extent and nature of the critical reading
discourse (CRD) of the students.
1.3 Research Questions
Taking the need for being critical in foreign language reading into consideration, this
case study aims to investigate the critical reading discourse of the freshman pre-service
teachers of English in the Advanced Reading and Writing Course. The research
questions are:
I. To what extent is the critical reading discourse reflected in students’ written
work?
II. How is CRD shaped/constructed through
i. feedback
ii. instruction
iii. over time
in students’ written work?
III. What is the nature of the critical reading discourse students reflected in their
written work?
IV. To what extent is the CRD reflected in students’ whole class discussions?
6
1.4 Purpose and Scope of the Study
The main purpose of this study is to examine the extent and nature of the critical reading
discourse of the students in a one-year Advanced Reading and Writing Course. First of
all, the students’ written work which is made up of reading journals will be analysed to
explore the extent of the CRD emerged in a year. In addition, the reading journals will
be investigated to examine the effect of instruction, time and feedback on the CRD. In
addition to extent, the nature of the CRD will also be analysed thoroughly. Finally, the
students’ discussions on two reading texts will be analysed in order to reach the main
goal of this study.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The studies focusing on critical reading (Bartu, 2002; Içmez,2005 and Içmez, 2009 ) are
rare in Turkish EFL context, There are a few studies on critical thinking in Turkish EFL
context (Alagozlu & Sezgi, 2010; Alagozlu, 2007; Yagcılar, 2010; Irfaner, 2002, Tufan,
2008). Therefore, there is a need for more studies and research to investigate these
concepts and to integrate them into foreign language learning.
This study may attempt to bring a broader perspective to the field as it integrates and
combines the notions of critical reading and thinking in foreign language reading.
Within the scope of this study, a new framework is set up after the modification of other
frameworks that are frequently used in critical reading and thinking studies. Although
7
this framework is adopted and modified in accordance with the specific context of this
study, it may set a model for future studies.
1.6 Overview of Methodology
In order to examine the critical reading discourse of the freshman students at the
department of ELT, the Advanced Reading and Writing I and II courses were observed.
The written data was also collected during two terms in twenty- nine weeks. The
students were required to keep a reading journal in which they would write their
reactions and responses towards the texts they read.
There were twenty seven participants who were freshman pre-service teachers of
English at the department of FLE. They were nearly at the same age and all of them are t
graduates of Anatolian Teacher Training High Schools. They successfully passed OSS
and YDS (the university entrance exams which are prerequisites for acceptation to
undergraduate programs in Turkey) to qualify for registration at FLE Department of
METU which accepts the students with highest scores in these exams.
The students kept reading journals throughout the year and, the journals were checked
and given feedback by the instructor. At the end of the year, the students voluntarily
gave their journals to the researcher.
Along with the reading journals, FLE 135 and FLE 136 courses were observed
throughout two semesters to better understand the extent and nature of the students’
critical reading discourse in the classroom. To this end, two courses were videotaped to
analyse students’ whole class discussions towards the end of the year.
8
1.7 Overview of Analytical Procedures
The analysis of the extensive data was a long process. First of all, all the journals were
read twice, at the end of the final readings of the journals, a comprehensive framework
to code the data was established. While setting up the framework, the other frameworks
used in the literature were modified taking the nature of the data into account. Adopting
content analysis method, twenty seven journals were analysed and the data was coded
into the framework. The whole-class discussions were videotaped and the same
framework was used to code and analyse the audio-visual data.
1.8 Limitations of the Study
As this case study has focused on the freshmen pre-service teachers of English studying
at METU only, the sample size is limited. Although the observer tried to participate in
the lessons and group work, the presence of the observer in the classroom might have
affected the students’ performances. The video-camera was also used for the two
lessons, so it may be claimed that the presence of the video-camera might have affected
the students. However, the observer did not notice any significant change among the
students in the video-taped lessons. Therefore, these limitations do not obstruct the
interpretation of the results of this study.
In addition to these, more class time can be spent on the critical reading instruction and
students may be interviewed to learn their opinions on critical reading.
9
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter, a review of literature on critical reading will be presented. This study
takes inspiration from the studies on critical pedagogy, critical literacy and critical
thinking. Therefore, first of all, Frankfurt School will be touched upon briefly to
introduce critical theory generally.
Then, Freire’s influential works Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Reading the Word and
the World will be analysed in detail to trace the roots of the critical pedagogy.
Thirdly, the current perspectives and studies on critical literacy which is basically based
on critical pedagogy will be explained and the problems of its integration into classroom
will be investigated.
At the end, the critical reading and thinking practices in EFL context will be given to
provide readers with a theoretical base for the study,
2.2 Critical Approaches
2.2.1 The Critical Theory of Frankfurt School
The critical theory of Frankfurt School which was formed by a group of scholars in 1923
can be considered as a first step in critical theory (Siegel & Fernandez, 1996) . The
10
school mainly criticised the positivitism which was thought to reduce reasoning to
instrumental rationality and separating facts from values. They thought that “science
become scientistic, something set apart from the workings of society; questions about
value were set aside in favor of questions about technique” (p. 144). Max Horkheimer,
one of the scholars that formed the school, pointed out that science failed to contribute to
the betterment of society as a whole.They mainly sought for a theory that “would
connect institutions, the activities of daily life, and the forces that shape the larger
society—that is, connections among the economy, the culture industry, and the
psychology of individuals.” (p. 144). Their main aim is to unmask the connections
between knowledge, power and domination and construct a more just society through
praxis, defined as a self-creating action with the help of critique and dialectical thought
(Siegel & Fernandez, 1996).
2.2.2 The Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Reading the Word and the World
In addition to the Frankfurt School, Brazilian philosopher and teacher Paulo Freire is
known and associated with critical approaches (Siegel & Fernandez, 1996). His widely
known and influential book Pedagogy of the Oppressed mainly discussed the struggle
between the oppressors and the oppressed. Paulo Freire took a revolutionary action in
his country with a very large and very poor working class population and taught reading
and writing to the 300 adult sugarcane workers in 45 days in 1962 to overcome the
oppression the peasants experienced. The book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, published
11
in 1970, is primarily based on the experiences and implications of this stimulating and
enlightening education process.
To Freire, people who have power and authority dominate and oppress other people in a
way similar to the relationship between colonizers and colonized. Freire (1970) defines
oppression in this way: “An act is oppressive only when it prevents men from being
more fully human.” (p. 42). It is claimed that there is a choice between “being wholly
themselves or being divided, between human solidarity or alienation; between having
choices or following prescriptions, between being spectators or actors; between speaking
out or being silent (...)” (p. 33). Oppressed people are always forced to choose the
second options indirectly or directly. Freire claims that self-depreciation is another
significant characteristic of the oppressed people since they usually consider themselves
as incapable of learning anything, unproductive and ignorant (p. 46). Freire suggests that
“to no longer be prey to its force- oppression, one must emerge from it and turn upon it.
This can be done only by means of the praxis: reflection and action upon the world in
order to transform it” (p. 36). Therefore, to struggle with this oppression, Freire proposes
a “humanising pedagogy” which necessitates a permanent and mutual dialogue with the
oppressed.
To explain the “humanising pedagogy” in detail, Freire first distinguishes it from “the
banking concept of education”. It is claimed that education becomes similar to the act of
depositing money into a bank. Teachers act as depositors who have to narrate, the
students act as depositories who have to receive, memorise and repeat the things
12
narrated to them. Therefore, Freire (1970) commented that “education is suffering from
narration sickness” (p. 57). So the banking approach never encourages students to
critically consider the reality.
Giving examples of “some professors who specify in their reading lists that a book
should be read from pages 10- 15—and do this to help their students” , Freire (1970)
states that these limiting reading lessons, the methods for measuring knowledge, the
relationship between the teacher and the taught, everything in this ready-to-wear
approach prevents people from thinking (p. 63).
However, Freire emphasises that “knowledge emerges only through invention and re-
invention, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the
world, with the world, and with each other” (p.208). Thus, there should be a problem-
posing approach which considers men and women as conscious beings, helps them to
foster in their relations with the world.
To sum up, Freire compares the banking education with the problem-posing education
and states that:
Banking education treats students as objects of assistance; problem-posing
education makes them critical thinkers. Banking education inhibits creativity and
domesticates (although it cannot completely destroy) the intentionality of
consciousness by isolating consciousness from the world, thereby denying people
their ontological and historical vocation of becoming more fully human. Problem-
posing education bases itself on creativity and stimulates true reflection and action
upon reality, thereby responding to the vocation of persons as beings only when
engaged in inquiry and creative transformation. In sum: banking theory and
practice, as immobilizing and fixating forces, fail to acknowledge men and women
13
as historical beings; problem-posing theory and practice take the people's
historicity as their starting point (p. 73).
Freire also comments that as a more humanising pedagogy, “problem-posing education
does not and cannot serve the interests of the oppressors. No oppressive order could
permit the oppressed to begin to question: Why?” (p. 74).
Finally, true dialogue cannot exist unless the dialoguers engage in critical thinking,
thinking which discerns an indivisible solidarity between the world and men and
admits of no dichotomy between them-thinking which perceives reality as process,
as transformation, rather than as a static entity-thinking which does not separate
itself from action, but constantly immerses itself in temporality without fear of the
risks involved. Critical thinking contrasts with naive thinking, which sees
“historical time as a weight, a stratification of the acquisitions and experiences of
the past,” (from the letter of a friend) from which the present should emerge
normalised and well behaved. For the naive thinker, the important thing is
accommodation to this normalised “today”. For the critic, the important thing is
continuing transformation of reality, in behalf of the continuing humanisation of
men (p. 81).
In his reading lessons, Freire advised his adult students to analyse the contents of the
newspapers to encourage a sense of criticism by asking “why do different newspapers
have such different interpretations of the same fact?” This question may help people
react to the newspapers not “as passive objects of the “communiqués” directed at them,
but rather as consciousness seeking to be free” (p. 118). To conclude, the main aim of
the liberal education is to help people feel like masters of their own thinking by creating
a discussion environment with their comrades.
14
Paulo Freire made a breakthrough with these inspirational theories and ideas in 1970s.
Although the workers considered themselves as ignorant and worthless, he organised a
radical movement and taught them not only reading and writing but also transforming
their world, looking at the world with new and broader perspectives. An illiterate
peasant who was taught to read and write talking about the benefits of this education
process commented that “we were blind, now our eyes have been opened”(p.65). As it is
clearly stated in his other influential book’s name, Reading the Word and the World,
peasants learnt to read the word and world.
Therefore, this book paved the way for growth of the critical and more humanistic
pedagogies all over the world. In his other book “Reading the Word and the World”
(Freire& Macedo, 1987) he is interviewed by Donaldo Macedo and he mainly focuses
on literacy. In his interview, Freire pointed out that reading does not only mean
decoding the written word or language; but it is also connected with the world
knowledge. A critical reader of a text is also aware of the relationship between text and
the context. “To sum up, reading always involves critical perception, interpretation and
rewriting of what is read.” (p. 24). With respect to thinking correctly while reading the
texts, Freire stated that trying to discover and understand what is found to be hidden
away in things and facts is the most important step in gaining sense of criticality (p. 61).
Similarly, in the introduction part of the book, Henry Giroux (1987) quoted from
Gramsci (p. 1), “literacy was a double-edged sword; it could be wielded for the purpose
15
of self and social empowerment or for the perpetuation of relations of repression and
domination”. He also stated that:
Most importantly, literacy for Freire is inherently a political project in which men
and women assert their right and responsibility not only to read, understand and
transform their own experiences, but also to reconstitute their relationship with the
wider society. Moreover, the issue of literacy and power does not begin and end
with the process of learning how to read and write critically; instead it begins with
the fact of one’s own existence as part of a historically constructed practice within
specific relations of power.(p. 5)
Thus, it is obvious that Freire considers reading not only as a cognitive ability or
mechanic skill, but also as a tool that carries ideological and social meanings. Acquiring
basic reading skills such as decoding, interpreting and comprehending the words and
texts are not enough, but one must also understand the text in its own context and relate
the text to their own lives.
In addition, as Gramsci stated literacy/reading is such a powerful tool that it can both
empower people by broadening their perspectives and also may keep them live under the
domination of the oppressors in indirect ways. Therefore, people should be cautious
while reading a text, should have a critical stance considering the texts.
To conclude, Freire and his works have a considerable impact on the education, critical
pedagogy and critical literacy. Although it is not directly written for foreign language
learning, his theory of humanising pedagogy affected all branches in education.
16
2.2.3 Current Perspectives on the Meaning of “Critical”
Nowadays, there are numerous studies involving critical approaches such as critical
ethnography, critical discourse analysis and critical language awareness which is
considered as Critical Discourse Analysis’s pedagogic branch, critical literacy, critical
pedagogy, critical applied linguistics (Siegel & Fernandez, 1996; Norton & Toohey,
2004, Pennycook, 2001, Canagarajah, 1999 ). Of course, all these domains cover
different areas and are not directly related. Allan Luke (2001) , to describe the common
characteristics of these domains, pointed out that: “ what has counted as critical in
recent years has focused on how people use texts and discourses to construct and
negotiate identity, power and capital” (p. 21). He also commented that while a decade
ago being critical means having higher comprehension and sophisticated personal
response to the texts, now it includes “political analyses of dominant texts, introduction
of students to sophisticated linguistic and aesthetic metalanguages for talking about
critiquing, and reconstructing texts and discourses”(p. 21).
These critical approaches also have a more comprehensive view of language as stated
below: “Language is not simply a means of expression or communication rather, it is a
practice that constructs, is constructed by the ways language learners understand
themselves their social surrondings, their histories and their possibilities for the future”
(p. 1).
17
In the third volume of the Handbook of Reading Research, Siegel and Fernandez (1996)
offer a more comprehensive summary of the distinguishing characteristics of the critical:
Despite the differences in the meaning of critical within critical scholarship on
literacy education, we can (tentatively) note some themes that this work seems to
share. One is that literacy is conceptualised as a social and political practice rather
than a set of neutral, psychological skills. Another is that critical approaches look
beyond the taken-for-granted explanations of practices and policies to understand
their historical formation, especially the ways in which discourses—systems of
ideas traditionally thought to be “outside” of schooling—work to construct the
instructional practices and social relations that constitute literacy education in
schools. And finally, critical approaches seek to challenge and transform the status
quo by engaging people in a “collective process of re-naming, re-writing, re-
positioning oneself in relation to coercive structures” (Davies, 1993, p.199) (p.
149)
Norman Fairclough (1989) who is widely known for his studies in critical discourse
analysis pointed out that he had two main reasons for the critical language study: First
one is “to help correct a widespread underestimation of the significance of language in
the production, maintenance, and change of social relations of power.” The second aim
is “to help increase consciousness of how language contributes to the domination of
some people by others, because consciousness is the first step towards emancipation” (p.
1).
Hillary Janks (2000), in her article Domination, Access, Diversity and Design: A
Synthesis for Critical literacy education defines critical language awareness:
Critical Language Awareness emphasises the fact that texts are constructed.
Anything that has been constructed can be de-constructed. This unmaking or
unpicking of the text increases our awareness of the choices that the writer or
speaker has made. Every choice foregrounds what was elected and hides, silences
18
or backgrounds what was not selected. Awareness of this prepares the reader to
ask critical questions: why did the writer or speaker make these choices? Whose
interests do they serve? Who is empowered or disempowered by the language
used? (p. 180).
As it is already obvious from the definitions given above, there is no strict description of
critical approaches. However, it may be claimed that being critical is being open to
marginalised or silenced voices of the society, to suspect, question and challenge the
discourses imposed by mainstream and authorities, to adopt a broader perspective.
Catherine Wallace (1999) discusses about her Critical Reading course offered to
advanced foreign language learners in order to examine the concept of Critical Language
Awareness. She considers critical literacy and critical pedagogy as the sister fields of
the critical language awareness. She points out the principles of the critical pedagogy
which are “teaching as emancipatory, difference-oriented and oppositional”. Wallace
(1999) states that critical pedagogy is seen as a marginalised project and as a result of
this; there is a possibility that students may feel themselves out of society, especially the
ones who are relatively in low social status (p. 101). For instance, a student participating
in a critical reading course commented that “I am a little unhappy about the course
because it consists only of non-white students” (McKinney, 1998 quoted from Wallace,
1999). Therefore, to show that this pedagogy is for everybody, Wallace points out a
different understanding of critical pedagogy: “one which values commonality rather than
difference and resistance rather than opposition and which aims to bring Critical
Pedagogy into mainstream” (p. 98). Thus, it is important to be aware that critical
19
pedagogy is not only for the students who are oppressed, marginalised, living in poor
conditions but for all the students regardless of their status and race.
In short, critical approaches in education, aim to empower people by encouraging them
to broaden their perspectives and to resist oppression and manipulation exerted via
language and education.
2.3 Critical Literacy, Critical Reading and Critical Thinking
In the last part of the literature, the concepts of critical reading and thinking will be
analysed and their practices in EFL classrooms will be investigated.
Critical literacy and critical reading which focus on reading and writing are mainly
based on the theory of critical pedagogy while critical thinking is claimed to be a set of
higher order skills including interpretation, analysis, evaluation, inference, explanation,
and self–regulation (Yagcılar, 2010).
Comber and Cormack (1997) in their review “Looking Beyond ‘Skills’ and ‘Processes’:
Literacy as Social and Cultural Practices in Classrooms” pointed out that “researchers in
the past have usually perceived literacy as being something that individuals did in their
heads” (p. 22). They listed the research methods such as eye-tracking, think aloud
protocols, interviews whose aims are to investigate the process in the readers’ minds
while they are reading.
20
However, these studies are not enough to answer some questions such as why some
children learned to read easily and others didn’t or the other factors that affect reading
and writing. Therefore, there is a need to consider this issue in a broader perspective,
literacy as “socially and culturally constructed practice”.
According to Comber and Cormack (1997);
To say that literacy is socially constructed is to acknowledge that you are
differently literate than your grandparents, that today’s children and their children
are and will be differently literate than their teachers. Literacy is not a set of
unchanging and universal skills or knowledge. What counts as literacy varies
according to “place, institution, purpose, period in history, culture, economic
circumstance and power relations (p. 23)
As a social and cultural practice, literacy has been viewed in a broader perspective.
Critical literacy necessitates “learning to read and write as part of the process of
becoming conscious of one’s experience as historically constructed within power
relations.” (Shor, 1997 as quoted in İçmez 2005, p.24)
When reviewing the studies (Belet & Dal, 2010; Bosley, 2008; Clarke & Whitney, 2009)
it can be observed the terms critical literacy and critical reading are used interchangeably
to explain reading as a social process as a way of empowering readers with the help of
examining the relationship between power and ideology in a specific discourse, namely
in a text. However, there can be confusion about the definitions of these terms as well.
For instance, Cervetti & Pardales (2001) in their article distinguish the critical literacy
from critical reading practices sharply.They claimed that critical reading is based on the
21
liberal humanism while the critical literacy is grounded on the critical perspectives. (p.
1).
Liberal- humanist tradition based on rational thought relies on the notion that the
“correct” intention of the writer can be decoded from the text. Therefore, according to
this approach “readers recognise the author’s purpose, distinguish the opinion from a
fact, make inferences, form judgements, detect propaganda devices in a text” (p. 2).
Nevertheless, critical literacy is claimed to be quite different and depend on the belief
that “knowledge is not neutral, reality cannot be known definitively” (p. 9). As a result,
everybody cannot understand the same thing from a text as it is culturaly and historically
situated. The ultimate goal of the critical literacy is to foster critical consciousness of the
human beings and struggle for a better society. Moreover, the table 2.1 provided
below mainly summarises the distinctions between critical reading and critical literacy:
While Cervetti & Pardales M.J. (2001) consider critical reading as decoding the texts
and understanding author’s unclear or implicit intention; Wallace (2005) considers it as
a weak form of critical and names it as critical thinking which is “to critique the logic of
the texts, to note inconsistencies and lack of clarity” (p. 26). In terms of critical reading,
Wallace (2005) sees it is a way to deal with power and ideology. She points out that
“critical readers are able and willing to critique not just micro features of specific texts
but attend to wider implications which relate to circulation of dominant discourses
within texts and so ultimately to the power bases of society” (p. 27).
22
Table 2.1: The Critical Reading versus Critical Literacy taken from Cervetti
& Pardales M.J., (2001)
Area Critical Reading Critical Literacy
Knowledge
(epistemology)
Knowledge is gained
through sensory
experience in the world or
through rational thought; a
separation between facts,
inferences, and reader
judgments is assumed.
What counts as knowledge is
not natural or neutral;
knowledge is always based
on the discursive rules of a
particular community, and is
thus ideological.
Reality (ontology)
Reality is directly
knowable and can,
therefore, serve as a
referent for interpretation.
Reality cannot be known
definitively, and cannot be
captured by language;
decisions about truth,
therefore, cannot be based
on a theory of
correspondence with reality,
but must instead be made
locally.
Authorship
Detecting the author’s
intentions is the basis for
higher levels of textual
interpretation.
Textual meaning is always
multiple, contested,
culturally and historically
situated, and constructed
within differential relations
of power.
Instructional goals
Development of higher
level skills of
comprehension and
interpretation
Development of critical
consciousness
With regards to the difference between critical reading and critical thinking Yagcılar
(2010) states that:
23
Basic distinction of the two concepts is that critical thinking encourages an
analysis of situations and argument that may have relation with the social and
human condition, but it does not specifically demand social action. Critical
pedagogy, however, expects social justice and examines and promotes practices
that have the potential to transform oppressive institutions or social relations. So
the expectations for the social action make the basic difference (p.13)
Macknish (2011) integrates critical thinking and reading in a figure 2.1 in order to show
the range of critical reading process rather than classifying and dividing two concepts.
Figure 2.1: Representation of the Range of Critical Reading Process
Source : Macknish (2011)
According to this figure, one can both employ the critical thinking and reading/ literacy
practices while reading a text.
However; Macknish (2011) in his case study with an ESL class in Singapore claims:
Although a distinction may appear straightforward, it seems too simple and
dismisses the idea that some processes overlap or are necessary for building
others. For example, we might ask whether it is possible for readers to uncover
language and power relations or an author’s hidden agenda without explicitly or
24
implicitly identifying bias and this may require readers to assess the credibility of
claims or question the source and the author’s purpose. (p. 446)
Therefore, Macknish points out that rather than setting rigid parameters and clear cut
distinctions, there can be different perspectives and ranges involved in this critical
reading process. The table taken from Macknish (2011) also displays the “range of
critical reading process” (Please refer to Figure 2.1 below for a representation of
Macknish’s Table).
As it can be clearly seen in the table, Macknish (2011) shows the process in non-linear
and interactive manner. As a result, a critical course may encourage the students both to
handle the texts in an analytic perspective and from a power perspective.
Although critical thinking views reality and knowledge as knowable, while critical
literacy proponents think in the opposite way, these two theories could be integrated.
One can both try to detect the writer’s intention, identify logical flaws, bias and s/he can
be aware of the fact that these entire deductions can vary among the people coming from
different social backgrounds.
Thus, this study is based on the integration of two practices and depends on the theory
that reading as a social process involves both critical thinking and critical reading. This
study undertakes the idea that these concepts feed each other and share some common
concerns such as empowering people.
25
As one should both read and think critically while dealing with a text, this study also
encompasses a critical thinking model in written discourse. Atkinson (1997) in his
influential article on critical thinking in TESOL states that although everybody agrees
with the idea that critical thinking is beneficial, nobody can give the exact definition of
this concept (p. 74). Atkinson (1997) argues that TESOL educators should be careful
while integrating critical thinking practices into the classroom. He explains the reasons:
Critical thinking may be more on the order of a non-overt social practice than a
well-defined and teachable pedagogical set of behaviours. Critical thinking can be
and has been criticised for its exclusive and reductive character, teaching thinking
to non-native speakers may be fraught with cultural problems and once having
been taught, thinking skills do not appear to transfer effectively beyond their
narrow contexts of instruction (p. 71).
Atkinson argues that “critical thinking is cultural thinking” and it is a social practice in
which children from western countries get used to in their childhood. Thus, there can be
some problems in putting it into practice in EFL and ESL environments. However, he
thinks that this should not prevent educators to implement it. Rather, TESOL educators
are advised to approach this notion carefully and critically.
On the other hand, Davidson (1998) thinks that although there is no exact definition of
critical thinking, most of the definitions provided in the literature have some common
points and “paraphrases of the same idea” (p. 120). Siegel (1988) calls the critical
thinker as one who is “appropriately moved by reasons”. In addition, Davidson (1998)
26
includes Norris and Ennis (1989) definition which is “reasonable and reflective thinking
that is focused upon deciding what to believe and do” (p. 121).
Davidson (1998) also states even one thinks that non-western societies value silence,
imitation, submission and conformity; this should not prevent educators from including
critical thinking practice in classrooms, especially in language teaching (p. 121).
In order to prove that non-western learners can think critically, Paul Stapleton (2001)
has conducted a study with Japanese undergraduate students taking English writing class
in a Japanese university. In this study, Stapleton aims to explore whether content
familiarity affect students’ critical thinking abilities. He collected the data from 45
students’ written work and employed the model presented in the Figure 2.2 below.
Stapleton claims that “the model proposed in this study attempts to address the lack of
adequate critical thinking tests by offering a scheme that can be used in assessing any
argumentative passage” (p. 515). Stapleton wanted the students to write argumentative
essays, as “persuasiveness is connected to critical thinking because writers must predict
their audience’s needs, and therefore both anticipate counter arguments and question
their own assumptions” (Ramage & Bean, 1999 quoted from Stapleton, 2001).
As shown in the Figure 2.2 below, key elements of critical thinking are argument,
evidence, recognition of opposition, fallacies (p. 517). Taking these elements into
consideration, the raters evaluated the students’ essays. The results indicate that
students’ written work included critical thought and the topic familiarity had a positive
effect on critical thinking (p. 533).
27
Figure 2.2: Key Elements of Argumentation
Source: Stapleton (2001)
In Turkish context, Alagözlü (2007) has conducted research to explore whether Turkish
undergraduate students at ELT departments show critical thinking and voice in their
written work. This study revealed that although the results from questionnaires indicate
high levels of critical ability of students have, written works suggest that students copied
the arguments what they read from the texts. The students were observed to be
unsuccessful according to Stapleton’s critical thinking model. Alagözlü (2007)
concludes that “EFL students need to be supported in terms of critical thinking skills
though they perceive themselves to be critical thinkers to overcome the difficulties in
writing and to cope with the requirements of the multicultural world” (p. 2).
28
2.3.1 Integrating Critical Literacy into Classroom
İçmez (2005) points out that “critical literacies do not provide, quite rightly, tailor-made
methodologies. As the emphasis of the critical literacies is on socially constructed
realities, ideologies, and identities, it would be a contradiction within itself to provide
ready-made methodologies to be used in a diversity of contexts” (p. 27).
To integrate critical literacy into the classroom is beneficial to help students to gain
awareness and consciousness; however, it can be difficult to put into practice as there is
no specific guidance for educators. It should be contextual and fulfil the needs of the
students in this specific context.
Dahl-Kramer (2001) in her article handles the issue with some caution and quoted from
Talib (1995) who claimed that critical literacy agenda may fail in non-western countries
due to people’s belief that is critical pedagogy is not necessary for economic growth or
the general well-being of the country, and it may be dangerous rather than beneficial (p.
16). In addition, Dahl-Kramer (2001) criticises the approaches that consider the “critical
thinking, critical reading and writing” as fast solutions to make students to think
analytically and find solutions to the problems and offer these packages to the students
as an adds-on to the curricula. In her critical reading and writing course for Singaporean
university students, first of all she asked the students to write their past experiences with
literacy. One of the students, in his first sentence of the essay, summarised his point; “I
write not because I have something to say; I write because I am expected to say
something, and in a way that others want me to” (p. 21). While the course continues, the
29
teacher always asked them to reflect upon the previous experiences of reading and
writing. Dahl- Kramer pointed out that it was a difficult process for the students who
got used to ask the questions “do we have to know this?” or “ will we have a test on
this? ” to take a course which students always need to reflect and question the goals and
contents of the course. At the end of her paper, Dahl- Kramer quotes from one of her
student’s final course evaluation to show the success of the critical reading and writing
course;
In the midst of the comfort and routine of quasi-school writing, of following the
rules laid down, I was suddenly thrown into world where I had to think about why,
I wrote the way I did for each particular subject. Up to this point my writing styles
had been adopted almost unconsciously- I wrote in a particular subject the
particular way I did because:
a) the teacher told me to do so
b) I copied the style from model essays;
c) the writing had always been this way what!
In other words, I only understand how, but not why. CRW finally had me thinking
about this why, and what the risks were of writing differently. Yet, while we
became aware of the cast of characters which shape our writing, the different
standards of different subjects, and the place of academic writing in our daily
lives, the project failed on one count- to reach out to the group of students who
still grope in the dark and follow the rules blindly because they do not know that
they have a choice. (p. 30)
Luke (2000) also asks the question that “is critical literacy in a state-based educational
system an oxymoron? Or is that really “critical literacy” or just a watered down version
of educational progressivism?”(p.451). He wonders whether critical literacy loses its
critical edge when it moves into tent of the state education system. Quoting from Herbert
Marcuse (Wolff, Moore, &Marcuse, 1965) who argued that “instead of suppressing
30
critique, the strategy developed in modern nation states was to tolerate it and therefore
appropriate it, to mainstream it and thereby steal away its potential threat to existing
economic and social relations”, Luke also doubts whether people manipulate the nature
of the critical literacy while getting it into state schools. After all, he concludes that the
implementation and success of the critical literacy depends on the teachers and students
who reinvent and reshape it in the classrooms (p. 459).
Hammond and Macken-Horarik (1999) in their article voice some important and
unsolved problems in terms of critical literacy in ESL classrooms. These are;
To what extent, does the development of an effective critical literacy in English
presuppose control of mainstream literacy practices?
To what extent do critical literacy programs introduce students to the cultural
and linguistic resources necessary for them to engage critically with the texts?
What recognition is there of the time and effort required on the part of both
teachers and students to develop such resources and of the need for explicit and
systematic teaching in order to assist students in this development? (p. 528)
To sum up, these questions address and attempt to examine the practice of the critical
literacy in the classrooms. As “within every culture and interplay of social ideologies,
identities, and power relations works systematically to advantage some people and
disadvantage others”. (p. 529) Hammond and Macken-Horarik (1999) considers the
critical literacy as guiding students in “developing insights into the ways in which those
ideologies, identities, and power relations work in society and the ways in which
language works to entrench and challenge those relations” (p. 529).
In order to answer the research questions, with this view of critical literacy defined
above, they conducted a case study of a lesson in a science/literacy program in Australia
31
with the Year 10 Australian secondary school students. In the paper, they present one of
the student’s development throughout the course in both the content knowledge and
having a critical stance towards the content of the course.
The data reveals that “without ongoing and systematic assistance in developing the
English linguistic resources that enable students to talk, read and write about that
knowledge, critical perspectives would not have been possible.” Therefore, it may be
claimed that instruction in English and encouraging critical perspectives should go hand
in hand as they stated “we believe that pedagogical implications for ESL students are
clear. They cannot be expected to run before they can walk” (p. 531). In addition, in
order to deconstruct the ideological and cultural assumptions in any text, one should be
able to know the ways in which those assumptions are constructed (p. 541).Thus; the
students were provided with instruction on language of science and metalanguage.
At the end of the paper, they concluded that in practice the teacher decides whose voices
will be heard and whose voices silenced which may lead to reproduce the status quo, as
some proponents of critical literacy argued. However, it is more important rather “to
make visible the content knowledge that is chosen in any program, explain why that
content has been chosen, and then provide systematic and carefully sequenced support
that will enable students to gain access to the cultural and linguistic practices
underpinning that content knowledge” (p. 542).
32
2.3.2 Studies on Critical Literacy in education
In this section, some of the studies on critical literacy will be introduced. Then, the
studies in EFL and ESL contexts will be reviewed.
Clarke and Whitney (2009) states that teachers want to incorporate critical literacy in
their lessons but they are not provided with the guidance. They are in need of a bridge to
critical literacy but it is hard to build it in practice. Considering Jones’ definition that is
“critical literacy is like a pair of eyeglasses that allows one to see beyond the familiar
and comfortable: it is an understanding that language practices and texts are always
informed by ideological beliefs and perspectives whether conscious or otherwise”
Clarke and Whitney (2009) attempts to put the theory into practice. They made use of
Jones’ framework which has three parts: deconstruction, reconstruction and social action
(Jones, 2006). First they make the students deconstruct the texts by using the techniques
such as graphic organizers, readers theatre and visual representation; then reconstruct
the texts by diary entries and rewriting familiar stories and at the end of this process
encourage students to take action.
Annie Fisher (2008) in her study explores the student teachers’ perceptions of the critical
literacy practices in the classroom. Fisher quotes from Johnson and Freedman (2005),
McDonald (2004) who proposes that “ education in reading is not simply about
deconstruction and response: it is about making a difference, moving the book out of the
class, developing an awareness of the book as an artefact and giving children a real
voice in discussing the text” (p. 20). In addition, she states that teacher should empower
33
the students to reflect their own understanding and experiences rather than to scaffold
them to find out the writer’s purpose and intentions in the text. By going beyond the
text, students will be able to give evaluative responses and have a critical perspective (p.
20).
Molden (2007) in her article, Critical Literacy, The Right Answer for the Reading
Classroom: Strategies to Move beyond Comprehension for Reading Improvement quotes
from McLaughlin & DeVoogd (2004) who claim “books can deceive, delude, and
misrepresent, as readily as they can enlighten and expand our knowledge”. Molden
(2007) explains the reason of this “because text goes unquestioned” (p. 50).
According to her, writers of the texts have more powerful positions than the readers. In
order to establish equal status in the reader / author relationship, critical literacy
practices should be adopted. In order to fit the crucial literacy into curriculum, she gave
numerous strategies and questions to analyse the texts (p. 53).
34
Figure 2.3: The useful questions to promote critical reading by Molden (2007)
Source: Molden (2007)
All these questions presented in Figure 2.3 above help students to handle the texts in
different perspectives and encourage them to deconstruct and reconstruct the texts as
they have never done before.
35
2.3.3 Studies in EFL and ESL contexts
Critical literacy has also been attempted to be incorporated in foreign language teaching.
For instance, Graman (1988) in his teaching English as a second language experience
with the adults in a rural area of Colorado followed Freire’s way. As a teacher he
realised that “empty words from the ESL materials” were irrelevant to the farm workers’
lives and living conditions. To take an example, he claimed that “language classes
should not emphasise so-called practical things for tourists, like ordering a cup of coffee
or asking directions, shopping, engaging in travel or business”(p. 442). In addition,
Auberbach (1985) argues that “ teachers emphasise such tasks as reading directions and
following orders in a job, but not the ability to change or question the nature of that
job.” Therefore, he encouraged students to generate themes which pertained to the
students’ lives for discussion and writing. Using a newspaper article or a picture as a
prompt, students are asked to voice their own opinions and feelings towards the issue.
They also engaged in a dialogue to discuss the problems, but “the right answers are not
the goal in a Freirean class. Rather, the objective is to examine beliefs and the basis for
them analtically and critically and to arrive at supporting arguments that reflect sincere
and intelligent work to resolve problems”(p. 446). According to Graman, the most
challenging part of application of Freire’ s pedagogy to learning a second language was
to help students to begin to search for and examine critically their own thoughts. That is
to say, people usually believe, obey or agree without questioning or doubting the
opinons which everybody also believes. Thus, he tried to break this vicious circle and
36
tried to make students aware that they are conscious beings and free to think beyond the
learning language.
Lewison, Flint, & Sluys (2002) in their study in which they present the experiences of
two elementary school teachers, one of whom is a newcomer and the other is novice,
review the range of definitions in research and literatures over the last 30 years and
sythesised them into four dimensions : disrupting commonplace, interrogating multiple
viewpoints, focusing on socio-political issues and taking action and promoting social
justice. Taking these four dimensions into consideration, they investigate the newcomer
and novice’s teacher’s critical reading practice in the classroom. This model has been
made use of, adapted or modified by some of the studies (Macknish, 2011 and Kuo,
2009). Due to the suitability of this four dimensions of critical literacy model for our
context, these framework will be explained in detail.
“Disrupting commonplace” refers to “seeing everyday through new lenses” (p. 383).
This dimension explains going beyond the conventional, ordinary and routine way of
thinking and adopting a broader perspective. In addition, Shor, (1987); Luke &
Freebody, (1997); Marsh, (2000); Shannon, (1995); Vasquez, (2000); Shannon, (1995);
Fairclough, (1989); Gee, (1990), (quoted from Lewison, Flint, & Sluys, 2002) focus on
this dimension of the critical literacy in their studies.
In terms of “ interrogating multiple viewpoints, to emphatise with the other people and
to “imagine standing in the shoes of others” is mainly emphasised.
37
Defitions by Lewison, Leland, & Harste, (2000); Nieto, (1999); Luke & Freebody,
(1997); Harste et al., (2000) and Farrell, (1998)‘s (quoted from Lewison, Flint, & Sluys,
2002) can be found in Table 2.2.
In critical literacy practices, there should be “focus on socio- political issues” taking the
fact that the language, power and sociopolitical systems are interrelated into
consideration. Boozer, Maras, & Brummett (1999); Anderson & Irvine (1993)
Fairclough (1989); Gee (1990), Lankshear & McLaren (1993) and Giroux (1993)
(quoted from Lewison, Flint, & Sluys, 2002) mainly studied this dimension of the
critical literacy.
Lastly, the ultimate goal of the critical literacy is “taking action and promoting social
justice”. Freire (1972), Comber (2001), Janks (2000) and Giroux, (1993) deal with this
dimension. Table 2.2 below presents all the dimensions and give various definitions of
each construct.
Table 2.2: The Four Dimensions of the Critical Reading by Lewison, Flint, & Sluys
(2002)
Disrupting
the common
place
Problematizing all subjects of study and understanding existing
knowledge as a historical product (Shor, 1987);
• Interrogating texts by asking questions such as “How is this text
trying to position me?” (Luke & Freebody, 1997);
• Including popular culture and media as a regular part of the
curriculum for purposes of pleasure and for analyzing how people
are positioned and constructed by television, video games, comics,
toys, etc. (Marsh, 2000; Shannon, 1995; Vasquez, 2000);
• Developing the language of critique and hope (Shannon, 1995);
• Studying language to analyze how it shapes identity, constructs
cultural discourses, and supports or disrupts the status quo
(Fairclough, 1989; Gee, 1990).
38
Interrogating
Multiple
View Points
• Reflecting on multiple and contradictory perspectives (Lewison,
Leland,& Harste, 2000; Nieto, 1999);
• Using multiple voices to interrogate texts by asking questions
such as “Whose voices are heard and whose are missing?” (Luke &
Freebody, 1997)
• Paying attention to and seeking out the voices of those who
have been silenced or marginalized (Harste et al., 2000);
• Examining competing narratives and writing counter narratives
to dominant discourses (Farrell, 1998); and
• Making difference visible (Harste et al., 2000)
Focusing on
Sociopolitical
Issues
• Going beyond the personal and attempting to understand the
socio-political systems to which we belong (Boozer, Maras,
& Brummett, 1999);
• Challenging the unquestioned legitimacy of unequal power
relationships (Anderson & Irvine, 1993) by studying the
relationship between language and power (Fairclough, 1989;
Gee, 1990);
• Using literacy to engage in the politics of daily life
(Lankshear & McLaren, 1993); and
• Redefining literacy as a form of cultural citizenship and
politics that increases opportunities for subordinate groups to
participate in society and as an ongoing act of consciousness
and resistance (Giroux, 1993).
Taking
Action and
Promoting
Social Justice
Engaging in praxis—reflection an action upon the world in
order to transform it (Freire, 1972);
• Using language to exercise power to enhance everyday life
and to question practices of privilege and injustice (Comber,
2001);
• Analyzing how language is used to maintain domination, how
nondominant groups can gain access to dominant forms of
language without devaluing their own language and culture,
how diverse forms of language can be used as cultural
resources, and how social action can change existing
discourses (Janks, 2000);
• Challenging and redefining cultural borders, encouraging
students to be border crossers in order to understand others,
and creating borderlands with diverse cultural resources
(Giroux, 1993).
Table 2.2 (cont’d)
39
In order to investigate the newcomer and novice teachers’ experiences with critical
literacy practices, they used pre-workshop questionnaires, post work evaluations, teacher
authored progress reports, workshop field notes, transcripts of study group sessions,
classroom observation field notes, student artefacts, and transcripts of student literature
circle discussions (p. 385).
The results revealed that students are engaged in the discussions on social issues
although the teacher was comfortable with literature discussions. Disrupting the
commonplace is the most evident dimension in the discussions that took place in the
newcomer’s teacher classroom. However, other dimensions are found to be less visible
in the discussions (p. 387).
The novice teacher is found to be more successful in including all dimensions of the
critical literacy; however, it is observed that social actions efforts in novice teacher’s
classroom are less evident than the other dimensions (p. 389).
Shin-ying Huang (2011), in her relatively current study “Reading ‘Further and Beyond
the Text’: Student Perspectives of Critical Literacy in EFL Reading and Writing” states
that although critical literacy has a significant place across all levels of education,
critical literacy in English as a Second Language (ESL) and English as a Foreign
Language (EFL) has not been explored extensively (p. 145).
In her study, she attempts to combine both conventional and critical literacy and to
investigate students’ perspectives about critical literacy, the benefits for reading and
40
writing skills in English. She collected data from the students’ written work and her
teaching journal in English Reading and Writing Course offered to non-English majors
at a university in Taiwan. Students were required to write reflection papers on their own
reading and writing process both at the beginning and at the end of the semester. In the
analysis process, the data were coded into three categories; the perception of critical
literacy by students, how critical literacy helps students to develop their reading and
writing, how their EFL literacy improved as a result of the course (p. 148).
In the course, Huang asked students sets of questions such as;
What is the topic?
What is the writer’s purpose? How does it relate to the source of the text?
What was not said about the topic? Why? What are the consequences?
Whose interests are served by the text?
What are the other ways of writing about the topic? (p. 148)
The texts are based on the themes of commerce, environment, gender and language. The
teacher, the researcher at the same time, chooses two texts from opposing points for each
of the theme. First, the students are encouraged to read one of the texts in the light of the
questions given above. Then the students write a short essay to reflect upon the issues
discussed in the text. Second, they read the other text looking the same issue in another
perspective. In the final part, the students evaluate the two texts and write another essay
reflecting their own thoughts and opinions. Huang (2011) claims that with the help of
this course, students both got better in conventional English writing skills and critical
literacy that is “reading the word and the world” (p. 149).
41
Students were found to view the course and critical literacy as beneficial and
empowering for them. The students consider the course as a tool to help them uncover
the hidden messages, gain multiple perspectives, comprehend the texts, and give reasons
to write (p. 151).
Another study in an EFL setting is “Critical Literacy and a picture-book-based dialogue
activity in Taiwan” by Jun- Min Kuo (2009). Kuo states that he collected data from
instructor’s journal entries, students’ class weblog comments, students’ midterm
reflection papers, interviews with the instructor/students and classroom observations in
order “to investigate the extent to which the goals of the critical literacy were achieved
in the classroom and to reach some implications for the implementation of critical
literacy in Taiwan” (p. 483). Kuo adopted four dimensions of critical litearcy model
offered by Lewison, Flint, & Sluys (2002) to code the extensive data. In short, the
students were given picture books related to social issues and engaged in short dialogues
to discuss the pictures in groups. The results of the study suggested that this picture-
based dialogue activity is effective for both promoting literacy learning and eliciting
meaningful themes for the students. Also, it is clearly seen that language learning is
socially constructed activity and critical literacy should be made use of in language
classes for this reason. Kuo states that “finally enthusiast of critical literacy should not
insist on including all dimensions of the analytical model used in the study. Instead,
teachers should consider their students, teaching purposes and teaching contexts when
they use elements from the critical literacy instructional model” (p. 483).
42
Macknish’s small-scale study aims to investigate the extent and nature of the critical
reading discourse that would emerge among Chinese ESL learners in Singapore over
time. The students were given instruction on how to analyse and identify the impact of
“visual and structural information, pronouns, nominalization, modality, imperatives,
passivization, presupposition, subject positioning, stereotyping, generalization, indirect
vocabulary, emotive vocabulary” (p. 452).
The data was collected from peer group discussions of eight texts during the 26-week
course. Two frameworks, four dimensions of critical literacy (Lewison et al., 2002) and
Varieties of Discourse (Zeichner& Liston, 1985) were merged and modified to code the
extensive data.(p. 453) As the table illustrated in Figure 2.4 displays, interpretive
discourse encompasses “disrupting commonplace, considering multiple viewpoints,
focusing on the socio-political and taking action.” Justificatory discourse involves the
way of justifiying opinions, claims of the writer. The extent of students’ attempts to
uncover ideologies, detect manipulations of the writer are explored in the empowering
discourse.
43
Figure 2.4: Three Discourses of Critical Reading
Source: Macknish (2011)
44
The results of the data analysis suggested that in the discussions of the first two texts
“interpretive discourse was limited and justificatory and empowering discourse was
nonexistent. Typically, at this stage, students went through the questions and answers as
if ticking items off a to-do list” (p. 454).
At the end of the course, it is observed that students were able to question the texts using
some text analysis tools mentioned above, evaluate their peers’ claims and they
“displayed evidence of engagement in a broader range of critical reading processes,
including increased dimensions of critical literacy and varieties of discourse, albeit often
in small groups” (p. 457).
Macknish (2011) points out that in the discussions, interpretive discourse was observed
to emerge more often when compared to justificatory and empowering discourse,
especially empowering discourse was rarely displayed. According to Macknish (2011)
lack of language proficiency did not hinder the process of critical reading. Rather, the
students need more scaffolding, modelling by the teacher and practice. Macknish (2011)
states that by the end of the course, students gained a more critical perspective, became
more conscious and she believed that “in the future they would engage in more
transformative processes” (p. 459).
Wallace (2005), in her comprehensive book named Critical Reading in Language
Education, aims to answer the question: what does it mean to be a critical reader in a
foreign language. According to her, critical reading challenges some cognitive and
psychological models of reading which consider reading as a set of discrete abilities.
45
Interestingly, Wallace thinks that non native speakers, that is, foreign language learners
of the target language, are not disadvantaged when compared to native speakers when
they are reading the non-pedagogic and authentic texts. Because foreign language
learners are not target audience of the texts so they can look at the texts from an external
perspective. Wallace argues that “not being invited to collude in a text’ ideological
positioning L2 readers are arguably in a stronger position both to perceive and resist it.”
(p. 42). Moreover, Wallace points out that a critical reader evaluates not only the
ideological assumptions in the texts, but also his/her own understanding and stance
towards the text. S/he asks himself/herself the question: “how do my identity and
ideological leanings predispose me to read texts in certain kinds of ways?” (p. 43)
Wallace (2005) conducted this study with her critical reading class during fifteen weeks.
The class is offered for undergraduate foreign language students. The students were
provided with the instruction on Systematic Functional Grammar (Halliday, 1994 as
quoted from Wallace, 2005) and they were encouraged to use this language analysis tool
to talk about the texts. The extensive data was collected from the students’ discussion
and talks around the texts, students’ diaries, reading protocols and follow-up student
interviews.
Wallace (2005) has some hesitations at the beginning of the study. First of all, it is not
possible to argue or judge that every word or linguistic feature of the text carries some
ideological meaning. In addition, it is too difficult for foreign language learners who are
still learning the language. Also teaching critical reading to the students may both create
46
a tyrannical and patronising classroom environment as the teacher guides and directs
students to help them to gain a different perspective
However, the results of the study suggest that critical reading is feasible, desirable and
necessary for foreign language learners. Wallace (2005) finds out that “language
awareness and language development can occur in tandem in that both the analytic
reading of texts and critical talk around texts constitutes learning opportunities” (p. 193).
With respect to the impossibility of determining the ideological assumptions underlying
the text, Wallace argues that “there is no finite end point to textual critique, language
awareness is open-ended” (p. 195). For this reason, she focuses on process rather than
products of the students during the course. With respect to the last hesitation of her,
although there can be a danger of “replacing the tyranny of the conventional classroom
texts with the tyranny of the most powerful interpretive voice in the classroom, that of
the teacher” (p. 197), Wallace concludes that language teaching has already been a
political and subjective process. Furthermore, “the ideologies and cultural assumptions
embedded in a wide range of English texts are more widely disseminated in written via
spoken texts. In other words, the very world dominance of English invites indeed
requires a critical response” (p. 47). Hence, the teachers should practice critical reading
carefully and try to avoid imposing their own opinions on the students.
Wallace (2005) concludes that:
47
My aim in the Critical Reading course was that my students should feel part of this
world and ultimately be able to contribute to and reshape its dominant discourses.
This is what I mean by being powerful users of language and literacy- to be active
questioners not just of texts nor of their own reality, but of wider social and
political inequities (p. 200)
İçmez (2005) has carried out research using the metholodology offered by Wallace
(2005). The study aims to investigate the impact of a critical reading course in Turkish
high school context. It also attempts to explore the effect of critical reading course on
the students’ motivation towards reading.
İçmez (2005), first of all, describes the nature of the reading lessons in Turkish
educational system. As she works with the high school students, she focuses on the
washback effect of YDS examination (foreign language exam). İçmez states that “the
general approach to reading in foreign language education, and in L1 reading education,
in Turkey in school settings is a traditional approach that is comprehension oriented.
Reading is seen as a linear act whose aim is to crack the code and to get the meaning
hidden in the text, following the structuralist paradigm” (p. 3)
According to İçmez (2005) there are some disadvantages that EFL students have in a
critical reading classroom. First of all, students have limited access to English outside
the classroom in Turkish context. Therefore, they might have difficulties in transferring
and integrating critical reading to their lives outside the classroom. In addition, as EFL
environment is a monocultural one, where every student has similar background. Thus,
48
this environment may not provide students with different perspectives or experiences (p.
208).
However, İçmez (2005) in her experience with the high school students observes that
students developed a critical approach to reading in spite of the disadvantages EFL
learners experienced.
Hülya Bartu (2002) also reports her experiences in three-year-old critical reading course
at Boğaziçi University in her book. She explains the process of critical reading and lists
the steps involved:
acknowledging the diference of the message that is conveyed
deciphering the message, comparing with our own thoughts and values
deciding on the worth of the message as well as our own knowledge
changing, conforming what we know, or deciding what more to read
(p. 3)
Bartu (2002) lists some useful questions for critically reading a text and divides them
into six categories. In addition, Bartu has provided the readers with some example
questions:
the reader (why am I reading the text, am I the type of the person this text
addresses? ...)
the creation of the text (who has produced the text? For whom and why?)
the text itself ( what kind of words are used –formal or slang , process or
nominal?)
the people and relations involved (does the writer approve/ disapprove of self,
reader and the characters? why? )
49
the meaning ( what ideas and beliefs are approved/disapproved of or merely
presented? )
the function of the text (what will the effect of this text be on other readers?
Why? )
Bartu (2002) states that the questions above belong to the students or are rewritten by
students or based on the feedback given by the students. Therefore, these questions seem
to be applicable for EFL students.
From the literature review, it can be concluded that there are many studies in critical
literacy and critical thinking but the number is limited when it comes to the studies in
foreign language education. This study is based on the theory of reading as a social and
interactive process and undertakes that every text is ideologically and socially
constructed. The next chapter will present the design and methodology of this study
which takes its basis from the studies and theories mentioned above.
50
CHAPTER 3
METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
3.1 Presentation
This chapter will present the methodology of the study. First, the research questions will
be presented. Then, in the light of the research questions, the research design of the
study will be explained. After a detailed introduction of the design, the setting of the
study and the FLE 135 and 136 courses will be described. Data collection and analysis
procedure will be described in detail to better present the results in the next chapter.
3.2 Research Questions
The main aim of this study is to observe the nature and the extent of the critical reading
discourse of the freshman students at the department of foreign language education at
METU in the Advanced Reading and Writing Course. In order to achieve this goal, the
students’ written work and whole class discussions are analysed to explore whether
critical reading discourse will emerge, and if so, the nature and extent of the discourse in
Advanced Reading and Writing Course over a year will be described. Below are the
research questions of this study:
I. To what extent is the critical reading discourse reflected in students’ written
work?
II. How is CRD shaped/constructed through
51
i. feedback
ii. instruction
iii. over time
in students’ written work?
III. What is the nature of the critical reading discourse students reflected in their
written work?
IV. To what extent is the CRD reflected in students’ whole class discussions?
3.3 Design of the Study:
In order to answer these research questions presented above fully, both qualitative
research methods are adopted. As Mackey and Gass (2005) point out “qualitative
research is based on descriptive data that does not make (regular) use of statistical
procedures” (p. 162). Qualitative research is claimed to provide rich description of the
phenomena under the investigation. Moreover, the qualitative studies take an inductive
way, so these types of studies first observe the situation then explore the questions raised
from the context (Mackey and Gass, 2005). Therefore, in alignment with the nature of
the research, qualitative methods are adopted for this study.
Taking the qualitative research methods into consideration, case study can be claimed to
suit best to fulfil the goal of this research. Case studies, as Mc Kay (2006) has stated,
“are frequently used to trace the language development of a particular group of learners”
(p. 72). In addition, they usually have a longitudinal approach and observations are made
52
at periodic intervals for a long period of time (Mackey and Gass, 2005, p. 171).
Therefore, this study is a case study making use of qualitative methods mostly.
3.4 Setting:
3.4.1 FLE 135 and FLE 136
At the FLE department, there are four sections offered for the same course which
students are placed in their sections in alphabetical order. The researcher observed the
one section of the same course which is taught by the same instructor to gather the
extensive data. The total number of the students who signed up for the FLE 135 (in fall)
and FLE 136 (in spring) is twenty seven. However, the main data, that is reading
journals, was collected from one of the sections of the same course. Therefore, the
participants of the study were twenty seven freshman pre-service teachers of English.
Advanced Reading and Writing I (referred to herein as FLE 135) is a compulsory course
offered to freshman students at the FLE department at METU in every fall term. The
course outline is provided in Appendix A. Below is the course description provided in
the university catalogue:
This course presents a wide range of authentic reading materials including
newspapers, journals, reviews and academic texts in order to comprehend
contrasting viewpoints and to predict and identify main ideas and to decode
intersentential clues. It also aims to equip students with intensive and extensive
reading habits. Critical thinking skills such as synthesizing information or
analyzing a problem as well as reacting on the basis of evaluation are fostered.
Such sub-skills of reading are employed by the students’ in their writings.
Students also analyze and produce different types of writings; build up writing
skills emphasizing the organization, coherence, and cohesion and such sub-
53
skills as summarizing, outlining, and paraphrasing at paragraph level. The use
of spelling and punctuation conventions as well as non-alphabetic symbol use
will be practiced as well.
FLE 136 (see Appendix B) whose description also is provided below is also a required
course that freshman students take in the spring term at METU:
“This course is a continuation of Advanced Reading and Writing I, to promote
higher level thinking skills. By processing a variety of different authentic
reading texts, students will develop superior-level sub-skills of reading namely,
making inferences and deductions, and reading between the lines. Students will
relate inferences from the text to real life, and gain insights into the cultural
similarities and differences. By means of the awareness gained from the texts,
students will analyze, synthesize and evaluate information, and therefore react
to readings. Students will also analyze and produce different types of essays
(e.g. comparison and contrast, classification, cause-and-effect analysis,
argumentative and reaction-response) that are unified, coherent and organized.
In addition to the integration of reading with writing, students will develop
basic research skills including library/internet search, and basic research report
writing skills such as citing, paraphrasing and referencing.
3.4.1.1 Classroom materials: Extensive Reading Pack
To reach these objectives explained above, the students have to keep a reading journal
(see Appendix C) for the whole year. In addition, some other materials are used in the
course like textbooks and essays brought by the instructor to the classroom. The students
receive two Extensive Reading Packs (ERPs) –one for fall term, the other is for the
spring term- that contain lots of newspaper and magazine articles, short stories in
different topics. Each pack is divided into fifteen weeks and each week there are a few
texts for students to choose. (see Appendices L and K) From this pack, they choose texts
54
to write responses to them. They are required to write a journal entry as a response to a
text in each and every week throughout the two semesters. In the sixth week of the fall
semester, the journals are submitted to the instructor for the preliminary check and the
instructor gives feedback on the content, presentation, fluency and quantity of the
written work. (see Appendix F). At the end of the fall semester the journals are
submitted to the instructor for the final check and grading. At this stage, the instructor
provides students with more comprehensive feedback on their journals. For the spring
semester, in the FLE 136 course, the students are provided with a new ERP prepared and
compiled by the instructor (see Appendix K) and their reading journals are collected
only for the final check. This spring ERP includes longer, academic and more difficult
texts when compared to fall ERP. Also in spring term, students are taught to read
academic texts and write in an academic style. Therefore, there is a gradual shift towards
academic reading and writing. Another difference between first and second term is that
students are expected to write freely (free writing) in the first term while they are
assigned to write reaction-response essays in the latter one.
3.4.2 The participants: The students
The students who were enrolled in the FLE 135 and FLE 136 courses were freshman
students at the Department of Foreign Language Teaching. The total number of the
students who signed up for the FLE 135 I and II was twenty seven. The same students
were placed in their same sections for the FLE 136 in the spring term. These students
were at the age of 18 on average, all of them were graduates of Anatolian Teacher High
55
Schools. All of the students took OSYS (Students Placement Examination) and YDS
(Foreign Language Examination) to qualify as a university student. All of them nearly
got the same scores and started their undergraduate studies in the Middle East Technical
University. In their first year, students have some compulsory courses which are
presented in the Table 3.1 below. All of these courses aim to develop students’ reading,
writing, speaking and listening skills and prepare them for their other courses in the
following years.
Table 3.1: Courses offered for Freshman Students at the Department of FLE
Fall Semester Spring Semester
FLE133 Contextual Grammar I FLE134 Contextual Grammar II
FLE135 Advanced Reading and
Writing I
FLE136 Advanced Reading &
Writing II
FLE137 Listening and Pronunciation FLE138 Oral Communication Skills
FLE129 Introduction to Literature FLE140 English Literature I
EDS200 Introduction to Education FLE146 Linguistics I
TURK103 Written Communication FLE178 Second Foreign Language II
FLE177 Second Foreign Language I TURK104 Oral Communication
IS100 Introduction to Information
Technologies and Applications
56
3.5 Data Collection Procedure
3.5.1 Data Collection Tools
3.5.1.1 Observation and Video Recordings
In order to understand the extent and nature of the Critical Reading Discourse of the
freshman students, both written and spoken data were collected during one year.
Within the scope of this study, the Advanced Reading and Writing class were
observed every week. The researcher only took some field notes during the class.
There is a possibility that students may be able to perform better due to positive
feelings as they are included in a study which is called as Hawthorne effect in
observations (Mackey and Gass, 2005, p. 176). In order to minimise these
problems, the researcher attended each lesson and participated in the group
activities mostly to minimise the effects of her own presence in the classroom. The
researcher tried to blend in the classroom to ensure that every student considered
herself as a student taking the class. The researcher observed FLE135 in the fall
term and FLE 136 in the spring term without interfering in the courses. She also
took some short field notes during the courses, when she felt necessary.
In addition, towards the end of the spring term, the instructor herself presented two
texts (The teacher who changed my life and School is Bad for Children) and guided
students to read critically with asking questions which stimulated the whole class
discussions (see Appendix G). These two courses were videotaped with the
57
permission of students and the instructor to analyse the nature and extent of the
CRD in the whole class discussions.
3.5.1.2 Reading Journals
As stated below, the reading journals of the students made up the core data of this
study. It must be kept in mind that these journals were not kept for the research
purposes but was the part of the course itself. The students who signed up for the
FLE 135 course had to keep a journal to analyse and to write their reflections to the
texts they read during the fall term. As they had to write at least an entry in each
and every week, at the beginning of the term, the students generally complained
about the difficulty of reading the long essays in the Extensive Reading Pack and
writing responses to them. They also stated that keeping a journal was time-
consuming especially when there were seven must courses apart from FLE 135 that
they had to attend. However, at the end of the term, when the instructor wanted to
get feedback from students about the journals they had kept, most of the students
surprisingly commented that they benefited from writing journals. One student said
that “the more I wrote, the more I felt my development in writing”. Furthermore,
when the instructor asked whether they wanted to continue keeping the journals in
the spring term for the FLE 136, most of the students stated that they were willing
to keep journals for the next term, as well. Therefore, in the spring term they went
on writing entries for each and every week.
58
At the beginning of the spring term students were provided with the format and
grading criteria for the reading journal. (see Appendices C and D). The instructor
of the course gave the students “Reading Journal Rubric” (see Appendix F) at the
beginning of the semester. In this rubric, students were also informed that their
entries would be evaluated considering the ideas, content, showing evidence from
the text, presentation of the journal, fluency and quantity of the writing.
They were given the guidelines for the reading journal which explained how to
write entries properly. The guideline explained four stages that the students were
expected to go through. First stage is analysing the text critically. This stage in
itself, included these steps; previewing the text, reading , rereading more actively,
dealing with the unknown vocabulary, identifying the writer’s technique, analysing
the language and structure, making inferences, evaluating evidence and supports,
determining your stance, doing extensive research. Second stage was to decide on
your own reaction. Third one was to organise ideas into an outline and the last
stage was writing reaction response essay. At the end of the term, the students
finished their journals and the researcher collected and photocopied the reading
journals of all the students at the end of the spring term. The students were asked
for their consent and all of them were willing to give their journals for the research.
After the duplication process, the journals were given back to them.
59
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure
With respect to written data, one hundred thirty five texts were analysed. For this
analysis, some criteria which served as critical reading indicators were determined
beforehand. These criteria were compiled in alignment with the Guidelines for the
Reading Journal (see Appendices C and D) at first.
After compiling these criteria, to code the data in an effective way, need for the
data analysis tool raised. Before reading all the journals gathered from the students,
a tool was designed (see Appendix M). At the end of the first readings of all
journals, ten journals were analysed deeply and data from these journals were
coded into this table. As it is stated above, students wrote responses to the texts in
different genres and types. So a student could write a response both to a news
article and short story. While analysing the data, this variety of response papers
created one of the most major problems. It was difficult to establish criteria which
were valid for responses to both short stories and argumentative texts. Therefore,
another way was opted for the data analysis. First of all, the most popular texts
were determined, that is the texts in the ERP to which students wrote responses
most. It is observed that students wrote more journal entries as a response to the
argumentative texts than short stories, informative articles. Therefore, responses to
the argumentative texts were chosen for the detailed analysis to research the
development of the critical reading discourse over time. Each student’s five journal
entries (response papers) were selected to perform in-depth analysis. The papers
60
which were written in the third, fifteenth, twentieth, twenty fifth and twenty ninth
weeks were selected with the aim of maintaining standards among the students.
In order to ensure inter-rater reliability of the study, a colleague of the researcher
was trained. Within the training procedure, she was told about the design of the
study and construction of the framework. In addition, the researcher analysed one
of the reading journals with the second rater to make her get used to the rating
process. At the end of the training, the second rater analysed 10% of the texts. The
analyses made by the two raters were compared and the results showed 90 % of
their scores matched.
As to intra-rater reliability, all the reading journals were read by the researcher at
least three times. In each time, some constructs were excluded and added to the
framework. Therefore, it may be claimed that the intra-rater and inter-rater
reliability of the study is high.
3.6.1 The Critical Reading Discourse Framework
In order to analyse the texts that were selected, a more comprehensive framework
that would help to handle and code the mass of the extensive data was definitely
needed. Thus, after selecting the journals for further analysis, the researcher
developed a more comprehensive analysis tool making use of the other tools that
were used to examine the CRD in different contexts in the literature. As it is
61
mentioned before, Macknish (2011) investigated Critical Reading Discourse of
students’ small group discussions and used the framework presented below.
62
Figure 3.1: Three discourses of critical reading as illustrated by Macknish
(2011)
Source: Macknish (2011)
Macknish (2011) briefly explained how he set up his own framework;
Answering my research question was not possible with a single analytical
framework. Therefore, to identify the extent and nature of critical reading
discourse, I merged and modified two frameworks: Four Dimensions of
Critical Literacy (Lewison et al., 2002) and Varieties of Discourse
(Zeichner & Liston, 1985) (p.453)
The framework adapted by Macknish (2011) was first found to be suitable for the
analysis of the data. Only some reading skills such as interpretation, detecting main
arguments, detecting the opposing arguments of the author, detecting the purpose of
the author, analyzing the language and structure, evaluating the evidence,
determining his/her own stance were added to the interpretive discourse framework
to better represent the whole picture in our own context. These skills were taken
from the FLE 136 GUIDELINES FOR READING JOURNAL (See Appendices C
and D) which were given the students at the beginning of the semester. The
researcher took the justificatory and empowering discourse framework from
Macknish (2011) without modifying or making adaptations as these frameworks
were thought to fit in our own data analysis procedure.
63
All the journals were then analyzed in accordance with this framework. However, it
was soon recognized that this framework was not also entirely suitable for the data.
Because in the students’ writings, the traces of reflection were observed in the
content of the texts such as showing agreement with the writer or disagreeing with
his/her ideas. The researcher categorized this discourse as responsive discourse
which also counted as an indication of critical thinking abilities of the students. In
addition, justificatory discourse was excluded; evaluative discourse was added to
the framework as the students evaluated the writer’s style, language, word choice,
the writer’s refutations, justifications. In addition, “disrupting the commonplace,
considering multiple view points, focusing on socio-political issues and taking
action” items (which were taken from Lewison et al (2002)) were added both to
the evaluative and responsive discourse as these dimensions were incorporated in
the frameworks in some of the studies in literature. With regards to the interpretive
discourse, detecting target audience and context of the texts were added to the
interpretive discourse framework. These items were taken from the FLE 136
Guiding Questions for In-Class Reading Texts (see Appendix E).
Overall, this new framework that was based on the course materials, Lewison et al
(2002) and Macknish (2011)’s framework and the students’ reading journals,
helped to analyze whether the students read the texts with a critical eye, think
critically and put forward their opinions, thoughts and solutions to the problems
discussed in the texts.
64
The Detailed Explanation of the Framework
The framework was provided in the Appendix I. The below is the detailed
description of the framework.
Interpretive Discourse: If the student;
detects the main argument of the text
is aware of the evidence that the writer shows to support his/her stance
understands and states the purpose of the writer
detects the hidden agenda or manipulative intents of the writer
is aware of the target audience of the text
is aware of the context of the texts, when and where it is published, who is
the author
Evaluative Discourse: If the student,
evaluates the justifications that the writer makes and decides whether they
are logical or not
evaluates the refutations that the writer makes and decides whether they
are logical or not
evaluates the language of the author taking the text into consideration
evaluates the tone of the writer (whether it is sarcastic, humiliating etc.)
65
decides whether the writer disrupts the commonplace
decides whether the writer consider multiple viewpoints
decides whether the writer focus on the socio political issues
decides whether the writer takes action, suggests a solution to issue
discussed in the text
then the researcher will put a tick in the box which is under the related title. If
the student fulfils these tasks mentioned above, s/he can be considered as a
critical reader and thinker. The performance of the student indicated by his/her
scores on the table will determine the extent to which the students can be
regarded as a critical reader/thinker.
With regard to responsive discourse, the researcher analyzed the students’
reactions, their own opinions for the controversial issues (such as the use of
mother tongue, employee rights, downloading...). In this section the data is
analyzed to answer these questions;
Whether the student;
develops a counter argument and supports his/her own argument with
giving logical reasons
supports the argument presented in the text and give logical reasons for it
In addition, while putting forward their own arguments, students should conform
to such criteria as;
66
disrupting the commonplace
considering multiple viewpoints
focusing on sociopolitical issues
taking action
Therefore, if the student going beyond the ordinary develops empathy for the
others, takes the sociopolitical issues into consideration, and finally takes an action
such as suggesting a solution for the controversial issue then it can be concluded
that the student is a critical thinker as well.
The Whole Class Discussions
The lessons were not wholly transcribed. Instead, after watching the videos the
researcher took detailed notes. The students’ answers were grouped in accordance
with the discourse categories and coded in the same framework. However, as the
instructor’s questions generally guided and directed the discussions while taking
notes, the researcher paid attention to the instructor’s questions and the way she
scaffolded the discussions.
3.7 Researcher’s Role
The researcher did not intervene in the flow of the courses or she did not suggest
the instructor to make any changes or adaptations in the courses. The researcher
only observed the class during the whole year and as mentioned before, in order to
67
minimise the effect of the presence of the observer in the class, the researcher acted
as a participant observer in the classroom (McDonough & McDonough, 1997). She
tried to blend in the classroom environment.
In addition to being a participant observer, the researcher also acted as an
interpreter. Johnson (1997) points out that researcher may not be objective as their
own pespectives can affect the interpretation and the analysis of the study (p.284).
Therefore, the researcher is aware that her own background and perspective can
affect her way of interpretation and analysis. In order to minimise this effect, a
collegue of the researcher was given training and asked for help for the rating
process.
68
Table 3.2: Time schedule for the data collection and analysis
FALL TERM (FLE 135) SPRING TERM (FLE 136)
Week 1 Week 1
Week 2 Week 2
Week 3 * Week 3
Week 4 Week 4
Week 5 * Week 5*
Week 6 Feedback Week 6
Week 7 Week 7
Week 8 Week 8 Feedback
Week 9 Week 9 Video
Week 10 Week 10 *
Week 11 Week 11 Video
Week 12 Week 12
Week 13 Week 13
Week 14 Week 14 * Feedback
Week 15
*The entries written in these weeks were selected for the in-depth analysis
69
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 Presentation
This chapter will present the results of the study. First, the results of the journal
analysis will be presented. In order to give a basic idea of the students’ journals,
general characteristics of the journals which were gathered in fall and spring terms
will be described. Then, in accordance with the critical reading discourse
framework, the results of the analysis of the each sub-category will be presented. In
addition, the table showing each student’s performances for each term will be
given.
While presenting the results of the reading journals’ analysis, each sub-category of
the interpretive, evaluative and reactionary discourse is focused on separately. In
addition, the results of the analysis of students’ entries are divided into two
categories; the entries in the fall term and spring term. Since the results are
presented under the category of fall and spring term, the effect of feedback and
instruction on critical reading can also be observed. Furthermore, the critical
reading framework which shows the frequency of each construct in students’
entries in both fall and spring terms will be provided. In other table, a more
70
comprehensive framework that also shows each student’s performances during a
year will be given.
Secondly, the results of the whole class discussions will be explained in detail.
Concerning the class discussions, general characteristics of the discussions of the
texts will be described initially. The two lessons, “The School is Bad for Children”
and “The Teacher who Changed My Life” will be explored in detail and the critical
reading discourse framework will be presented for both of the lessons. At the end of
the chapter, taking the results into consideration, the research questions will be
answered.
4.2 The Analysis of the Journals
4.2.1 The General Characteristics of the Reading Journals
This section attempts to provide the readers with a general description of the
reading journals of the students.
The students generally wrote one page or one and half pages for each entry. While
some students wrote one entry for each week, the others wrote two or three entries
for each week. The length of these entries varied between one page and four pages.
At the end of the fall term, each student received feedback on their journals.
Generally all the students were provided with feedback focusing o “being more
critical”. The feedback’s effect on students’ CRD are analysed and presented in
71
detail while answering the research questions. In addition, Table 1 (Appendix)
provides readers with each student’s feedback.
One of the most significant characteristics of the reading journals is the differences
between fall term and spring term entries in terms of writing style of the students.
As they were given instruction on academic writing, giving reference, APA style..
(see Appendix B for the course outline FLE 136), the students’ entries included
references, became more academic when compared to those in the fall term.
Having touched upon the general characteristics of the reading journals, it is high
time to present the results in accordance with the framework described in detail in
the previous chapter.
4.2.2 The Results of the Analysis of Interpretive Discourse in the Reading
Journals
In this section, the evaluative discourse of the students’ entries in both fall and
spring term will be analysed and the results will be presented in detail. Each
construct of the evaluative discourse will be analysed both for fall and spring term
separately. The students were expected to analyse the texts taking the constructs of
the CRD framework such as language of the text, purpose of the writer, disrupting
the commonplace into consideration.
In addition, each student and text in the Extensive Reading Packs was given a
number. (See Appendices K, L for the texts and see Appendix J for the students)
72
4.2.2.1 Detecting the main argument
It is observed that in the fall term, all of the students were able to detect the main
ideas of the texts to which they wrote responses. Twenty seven students, each of
whose two entries’ were analysed for the fall term, easily managed to get the gist of
the text and they stated the main idea of the texts in their entries. 100% of the
entries included the main ideas of the texts.
The main arguments were usually stated in the first paragraph of the entries in one
sentence. In some of the entries, the students did not directly state the main idea;
however, one can recognise their comprehension when the full text is read.
Therefore, it can be claimed that all of the students were successful in detecting the
main arguments of the texts in the fall term.
In the spring semester, three entries of each student were selected and analysed.
Twenty seven students stated the main ideas of the texts to they wrote responses;
however, as shown in the table, out of eighty one entries, seventy five entries
included the correct main ideas of the texts. In other words, 92 % of the entries
included the correct main ideas of the texts.
For instance, S4’s entry which was written in the twentieth week included the
example of problems detecting in the main arguments. S26 in her/his entry written
in the twentieth week as a response to the text 226 commented that “I totally agree
with the writer because we share same opinion, we are opposed to abortion.”
However, the writer discussed the abortion issue in many aspects and couldn’t
73
reach a final decision at the end of the text. In consequence, it can be inferred that
the student could not get the main idea of the text.
There were actually few texts which students apparently had difficulties in
understanding the main ideas, such as the texts 253 (Turkey’s role in Arab World),
226 (Some thoughts about abortion), 265, 211 (Digital Democracy in Turkey).
Some of the students who chose to write responses to these texts misinterpreted the
texts and misunderstood the writer’s purpose and intention. It was surprising to find
out this result while development and improvement in reading were expected.
Therefore, the reasons for misinterpretation and misunderstandings will be
discussed thoroughly in the discussion and conclusion chapter.
In some cases, students might seem to misunderstand the text and unable to detect
the main idea of the text. However, when their entries were read carefully, it may
appear that they directly stated the text’s hidden meaning rather than ostensible one.
For instance, S13, in his/her entry written in the twenty ninth week as a response to
the text 256, wrote that “he [the writer] thinks that Turkey is playing a very crucial
role in the Arab world.” On the contrary, the writer presented the results of a survey
about the Arab’s perception of Turkish people in some areas, and he seemed to
discuss the results of the survey, not his own opinions. Yet, the S13 skipped the
survey’s results and put forward that the writer himself believed that Turkey was in
a powerful position and disregarded other evidences that demonstrated the current
74
position of Turkey in Arab world. Then s/he continued to prove Turkey’s weak
position with the help of examples.
This case can show that S13 challenged the texts but did not follow the guideline
step by step. Rather than evaluating the evidence of the writer, s/he inferred that the
writer manipulated the situation. The probable reasons for this case will be
discussed in next chapter.
4.2.2.2 Detecting the evidence of the writer
In terms of detecting the evidence of the writer, it was found out that students could
detect the evidence that the writer showed to support his/her own argument in their
41 out of 54 entries. 75 % of the entries that were written in the fall term included
the evidence of the writer. When we looked at the other entries that lacked of the
evidence, although all of them understood the main ideas of the texts never talked
about the writer’s evidences. The others only summarised the texts and again did
not dwell on the writer’s supporting evidences.
For instance, S26 in his/her third week only summarised the main ideas of the text
and did not discuss the evidences the writer put forward. S 38 detected the main
ideas of the text in his second entry, but did not mention the evidences.
To sum up, although in the fall term the students understood the gist of the texts
and stated them, in 25 % of the entries there was no mention of evidence of the
writer.
75
In the spring term, out of eighty one entries, sixty nine entries included the evidence
of the writer; that is, 85% of the entries were successful in detecting the evidence
of the writer.
The same students, who were unsuccessful in detecting main arguments in some of
the texts in the spring term, could not detect the evidence of the writer in the same
texts in the spring term.
In addition, S46 understood the main ideas of the text; however, he just took the
evidence of the writer from the text without paraphrasing or putting it into
quotation marks. Therefore, it could be claimed that s/he might have copied this
from the text.
To conclude, there is an increase in the number of entries including the evidence of
the writer in the spring term.
4.2.2.3 Understanding the writer’s purpose
Few of the students explained the purposes of the writers in the fall term. Only in
the six out of 54 entries, the students touched upon the purpose of the text that was
under evaluation. Two of these entries belonged to the same student, S 13. That is,
11 % of the entries included the writer’s purpose.
76
In the spring term, the number of the entries talking about the purpose of the writer
increased. 33 out of 81 entries dealt with the question of why the writer wrote that
text.
Two of the students (S13 and S1) misunderstood the writer’s purpose and although
they also focused on the purpose, their entries were excluded.
Therefore, while in the fall term 11 %of the entries touched upon the purpose of the
writer, it was found out that 40 % of them dealt with the purpose in the spring term.
4.2.2.4 Understanding the hidden agenda of the writer
Hidden agenda of the writer was one of the least discussed issues by the students.
This construct of the critical reading discourse was not given in the guidance or
students were not taught about this directly. However, the instructor constantly
asked about the writer’s hidden agenda in the class discussions of the texts
especially in the spring term.
Concerning the results of the analysis of the journals, none of the entries written in
the fall term, touched upon the writer’s hidden agenda. In the spring term, four
students (S1, S3, and S30, S13) questioned the writer’s manipulative intents.
To illustrate, S1 in his/her last entry in the spring term, criticising the way of
writer’s dealing with the issue, stated that “in some parts, he – the writer-
77
exaggerates the topic. He probably wants to be more effective but he does not
reflect the truth.”
S3, in his/her second entry as a response to the text 253 in the spring term, stated
that “I believe the writer tries to represent Turkey as a powerful and peaceful
country.” As mentioned previously, S13 also focused on the writer’s manipulative
intents.
S30, in his/her first entry in the spring term, guessed the writer’s political view
although the writer never referred to this issue. S/he stated that “I can understand
her viewpoint from the article... It shows that she is in favour of oppositional
party.” and gave a brief explanation why s/he thought like that.
This sub-construct can be claimed to be one of the most important indicators of the
critical reading. Students seem to get better in understanding the hidden agenda of
the writer.
4.2.2.5 Being aware of the target audience
Only S38 in his/her second entry asked the question “for whom could be the text
written?” in the fall term.
In the spring term, 6 of 81 entries questioned the target audience of the texts. Three
of these entries belonged to S30. One of his/her entries s/he wrote for the writer
“she does not address a specific group.” S44, S47 and S10 touched upon this issue
78
as well. Thus, in 7 % of the entries, one could detect the question of “for whom
could be the text written.”
4.2.2.6 Being aware of the context of the text
In terms of context of the texts, the students were expected to answer these
questions “where and when was the text published, who was the writer, what was
his/her profession, what was the socio political context at the time when the text
was published ...”
In the fall term, three of the entries written by S13, S33, and S42 dealt with these
questions. S13, in his/her second entry, commented that “the writer is an expert in
this science so his ideas on reading can be helpful all the university students.” .
Thus, one could figure out that s/he was aware of the context of the text and s/he
could evaluate the text in a broader perspective taking the writer’s background into
the consideration.
With respect to spring term, seven students showed that they were aware of the
context of the texts. 11 out of 81 entries included the context of the texts.
While 5 % of the entries touched upon the issues such as the writer of the text,
where the text was published and the time of the text was published in fall, one
could find out that 13 % of the entries talked about the issues in the spring term.
Therefore, it may be concluded that there was not an increase in the numbers of
entries dealing with the context of the texts.
79
4.2.3 The Results of the Analysis of Evaluative Discourse in the Reading
Journals
4.2.3.1 Evaluating the writer’s refutations
It is found out that while nine out of fifty four entries included the evaluations of
the writer’s refutations in the fall term, this number greatly increased and
evaluations of the writer’s refutations were detected in thirty three out of eighty one
entries. Therefore, 16% of the entries in the fall term included the evaluations of the
writer refutations in the fall term; in 40% of the entries one could find the
evaluations of the writer’s refutations.
All the students’ evaluations were proper, so there was no entry that included
improper or wrong evaluations of the texts.
4.2.3.2 Evaluating the writer’s justifications
With regard to the writer’s justifications, students apparently got better in being
aware of the writer’s justifications and making decisions as to whether the writer’s
justifications are rational or not in the spring term when compared to their
performance in the fall term.
In the fall term, 18 out of 54 entries dwelt on the writer’s justifications, while 45
out of 81 entries included evaluations of the writer’s justifications in the spring
term. In other words, while 33% of the entries included this critical reading
80
indicator in the fall term, 55 % of the entries discussed the writer’s justifications in
the spring term.
It was found out that the students evaluated the writer’s supporting arguments and
justifications properly. To illustrate, S3 in his first entry, wrote “He –the writer-
shows evidences, events and experiences which other people go through.” and
explained these in detail.
4.2.3.3 Evaluating the language of the writer
In the fall term, it was found out that the language of the texts was evaluated in 7
out of 54 entries. In order to illustrate how the students evaluated the language of
the writer, some examples can be given. For instance, S18, in his/her second entry
commented that “words in the article are a bit difficult to understand.”
S42, in his/her second entry as a response to the text 131, pointed out that “All I can
say grammatical context is very complex... It is sometimes boring and comparisons
between two things are often hard to solve for me. Stephen King is outright
professional writer and to understand absolutely what he write about need some
intellectual information.”
In the spring term, 9 out of 81 entries included the evaluation of the language of the
texts. Therefore, it may be concluded that there was no significant difference
between fall and spring term in the student’s entries concerning the evaluation of
81
language in the texts. While one could detect this CRD construct in 12 % of the
entries in the fall term, in the spring term this rate was 11%.
4.2.3.4. Evaluating the tone of the writer
The tone of the writer was touched upon in the two entries in the fall term. S27 and
S38 evaluated the tone of the writer. S27 in his/her first entry commented that “her
pessimistic style- the writer’s- provides us to think what we must do.”
In the spring term, 8 out of 81 entries were found to include the evaluation of the
tone of the writer. As a consequence, in the fall term in 3 % of the entries, the
students were able to evaluate the tone of the writer, in the spring term the students
managed to evaluate the tone of the writer in 9 % of the entries.
4.2.3.5 Deciding whether the writer disrupts the commonplace
Deciding whether the writer disrupts the commonplace is the least referred issue in
the entries of the students written in both fall and spring terms. None of the students
discussed this CRD construct in their journals. As explained in detail before, the
students were expected to evaluate the text whether the writer challenges
stereotypes, questions the beliefs or thoughts shared by the society. The reasons
why none of the students evaluated the texts in this dimension will be discussed in
detail in the discussion chapter.
82
4.2.3.6 Deciding whether the writer considered multiple viewpoints
While evaluating the texts, none of the students questioned the texts as to whether
the writer considered multiple viewpoints. The reasons why none of the students
evaluated the texts in this dimension will be discussed in detail in the discussion
chapter.
4.2.3.7 Deciding whether the writer focuses on socio-political issues
It was found out that none of the students touched upon this CRD construct in their
journals. The reasons why none of the students evaluated the texts in this dimension
will be discussed in detail in the discussion chapter.
4.2.3.8 Deciding whether the writer suggests a solution
It was found out that none of the students touched upon this CRD construct in their
journals. The reasons why none of the students evaluated the texts in this dimension
will be discussed in detail in the discussion chapter.
4.2.3.9 Making overall evaluation
It was found out that the overall evaluation of the texts were made in the fall term
in 11 out of 54 entries; in other words, 20 % of the entries included overall
evaluations of the texts. For instance, S29 wrote at the end of his/her first entry “...
thanks to the writer for explaining her ideas in brevity.”
83
In the spring term, one could find out the overall evaluations of the texts in 11 out
of 81 entries. Thus, 13% of the entries included general evaluations of the texts in
the spring term. To illustrate, S38 wrote in his/her first entry in the spring term
“ironical examples fit in argumentative style, in addition her ideas- the writer-
presented clearly and logically” in order to evaluate the text generally. Therefore,
the students in the spring term wrote fewer entries evaluating the texts generally
when compared to the fall term.
The probable reasons of the decline in numbers of the entries making overall
evaluations of the texts in the spring term will be discussed in the next chapter.
4.2.4 The Analysis of the Responsive Discourse in the Reading Journals
In this section, the students’ reactions to the issues discussed in the texts were
examined. Students were expected to develop logical arguments that can support
and/ or refute those of the writers. In addition, they had to give plausible reasons for
their arguments.
These arguments of the students also were examined as to whether they disrupted
the commonplace, considered the multiple viewpoints, focused on the socio-
political issues. Furthermore, the students were expected to suggest a solution to the
controversial issues discussed in the texts.
84
4.2.4.1 Developing counter arguments and giving logical reasons for them
In 13 out of 54 entries, that is in 24% of the entries, the students were observed to
put forward convincing counter arguments concerning the issues addressed in the
texts in the fall term. Concordantly, in these 13 entries, students were able to give
logical and convincing reasons to justify their own stance.
In the spring term, the number of the entries which refuted the writer’s ideas
significantly increased. In 38 out of 81 entries, that is in 46% of the entries, one
could find out that students refuted the writer’s ideas. Consistently, in these 38
entries, one could find out that the students were able to explain why they disagreed
with the writer.
4.2.4.2 Developing a supporting arguments and giving logical reasons for them
In 26 out of 54 entries, that is in 48% of the entries, the students were able to
support the writer’s arguments in the fall term. In 19 out of 54 entries, that is %35
of the entries, students were able to give their own logical reasons. In the seven
entries, the students repeated the writer’s own reasons so these entries were
excluded.
In spring term, in 56 out of 81 entries, that is in 69% of the entries, students were
able to support the writer’s arguments. In 50 out of 81 entries, that is in 64% of the
entries, students were able to offer their own reasons to justify the arguments
discussed in the texts.
85
4.2.4.3 Disrupting the commonplace
It was observed that students were not able to go beyond the generally adopted
beliefs or opinions in both fall and spring semesters.
4.2.4.4 Considering multiple viewpoints
In the fall term, it was found out that students were able to consider different
perspectives related to the issues in 10 out of 54 entries. In other words, 18% of the
entries included multiple perspectives.
S40, in his/her second entry as a response to the text 226 titled as “Some thoughts
about abortion” dealt with the issue considering both mother’s and the infant’s
perspective.
In the spring term, there was a significant increase in the number of the entries
considering multiple viewpoints when compared to the fall term. 24 out of 81
entries, that is in 29% of the entries, included multiple viewpoints concerning the
controversial issues.
To illustrate, S30 in his/her last entry as a response to the text 236, set a good
example of considering multiple viewpoints. The text 236 titled as “how the web
destroys the quality of students’ research papers” argues about the disadvantages of
the web. However, S30 both explained the web’s advantages and disadvantages
considering the students and the instructors.
86
4.2.4.5 Focusing on socio-political issues
In the fall term, S34 touched upon the socio political issues in his/her entry as a
response to the text 134. In the text titled as “condemn the crime, not the person”,
the writer claimed that the shame cannot be used a punishment. S34 agreed with
this and commented that “it can be carried out in developed and sophisticated
society.” It could be inferred that s/he considered the issue’s socio-political
perspective, as well. Therefore, when the entries written in the fall term were
analysed, only one student’s entry was found to include socio-political perspectives.
In the spring term, in 5 out of 81 entries, students were able to focus on the socio-
political issues in their entries. S16, in his/her first entry as a response to the text
192 titled as “The English Only Movement: Can America Proscribe Language with
a Clear Conscience?” dealt with official language issue focusing on the socio-
political issues. S/he stated that “...it seems to be necessary to determine an official
language. Unless it is decided, it seems to me that it is very hard to form a social
order.”
4.2.4.6 Suggesting a solution
At the end of the each journal entry, the students were expected to reach a
conclusion and suggest a solution to the problem addressed in the texts. In the fall
term, 5 out of 54 entries, that is in 9% of the entries, were found to include
plausible and logical solutions. For instance, S25 in his/her first entry in the fall
87
term, suggested that “I would give a solution like making young people conscious
about that issue in many ways.” for the problem dealt with in the text 133.
In the spring term, 16 out of 81 entries, that is in 19% of the entries, students
offered reasonable solutions to the problems discussed in the texts.
4.3 The Discussion of the Research Questions
4.3.1 The Extent of CRD in Reading Journals
It must be kept in mind that it is difficult to assess the full extent of CRD of
students. However, three broad categories, that is interpretive, evaluative and
responsive discourse, emerged from the analysis of the reading journals and the
whole class discussions. These three broad categories may also shed light into the
nature of the CRD of students which will be discussed later. When looked at the
Table showing the number of entries touched upon the constructs of the interpretive
and evaluative discourse in both fall and spring terms, it can be observed that the
number of entries declines towards the right part of the framework. This framework
can also be considered as a continuum in which the difficulty level of items
increases to the right hand side. Therefore, the students apparently had difficulties
in detecting hidden agenda, target audience of the writer. In addition, they did not
make a judgement as to whether the writer considered the multiple viewpoints,
disrupted the commonplace, focused on socio-political issues and took an action.
To sum up, in terms of evaluative discourse students were not able to succeed in
88
assessing the texts in these dimensions. Below are tables showing the extent of
CRD reflected in journals:
In addition to interpretive discourse dimension, performances on evaluative
discourse can be presented as below in Table 4.2:
Table 4.1. Interpretive Discourse Emerged from the CRD Journals
argument evidence purpose hidden
agenda
target
audience
context
fall 54 40 6 0 1 3
percentages 100% 75% 11% 0% 1% 5%
spring 75 69 33 3 6 11
percentages 92% %85 40% 1% 7% 13%
89
In terms of reactionary discourse, the framework cannot be considered as a
continuum as in evaluative discourse. Because, students may agree or/and disagree
with the text. However, it is observed that students generally tend to agree with the
ideas argued in the texts. Students supported the writers in 27 out of 54 entries in
the fall term, while in 13 out of 54 entries students disagreed with the texts. In the
spring term, this situation did not change. Students agreed with the writers in 56 out
of 81 entries in the spring term, while in 38 entries one could observe the counter
arguments. Therefore, it can be claimed that students have tendency to show
agreement with the writers.
They also were successful in considering multiple viewpoints; they could tackle
with the issues in broader perspectives. However, in other respects such as
disrupting the commonplace, focusing on socio-political students was seemed to be
Table 4.2. Evaluative Discourse Emerging in Journals
re
futa
tati
on
just
ific
atio
n
word
choic
e
languag
e
tone
com
monpla
ce
mult
iple
vie
wpoin
ts
soci
o p
oli
tica
l
take
acti
on
Over
all
eval
uat
ion
fall 9 19 5 7 2 1 0 0 0 11
%
16% 33% 9% 12% 5% 1% 0% 0% 0% 20
%
spring 33 43 5 9 8 1 2 0 0 14
%
40% 53% 6% 11% 9% 1% 2% 0% 0% 17
%
90
unsuccessful (refer to the part...). It is found students made progress in terms of
finding reasonable solutions to the problems addressed in the texts in spring term.
4.3.2The CRD through Feedback and Instruction
When the FLE 135 (in fall term) and FLE 136 (in spring term) outlines were
analysed closely, it could be seen that there is a gradual development from basic
reading skills such as previewing, skimming to higher skills such as understanding
the figurative language, synthesizing. (See Appendices A and B). Therefore, with
the help of well-planned course, students got better in interpreting the texts, reading
between the lines, evaluating the writer considering different aspects and
responding to them in an appropriate way.
Table 4.3. Responsive Discourse Emerging in Journals
counte
r
argum
ents
reas
on
support
ing
argum
ent
reas
on
dis
rupti
ng
the
com
monpla
ce
mult
iple
vie
wpoin
ts
soci
o p
oli
tica
l
take
acti
on
fall 13 13 27 19 2 10 1 5
% 24% 24% 50% 40% 3% 18% 0%
12
%
spring 38 39 56 52 1 24 5 16
% 46% 46% 69% 64% 1% 29% 6%
19
%
91
Thus, students’ entries were found to be longer, more fluent and include more
critical reflection when compared to the fall term. The students apparently
developed themselves and they started to read the texts in a new perspective. In
addition, they could reflect on what they read more critically. Furthermore, in the
spring term, with the help of the courses on research skills, citation, and APA style,
the students wrote in a more academic style.
In terms of feedback which was given at the end of the fall semester, a great
majority of the students were provided with nearly the same guidance: “include
more critical reflection” .The instructor generally gave short feedback and those
were naturally not comprehensive enough to explain “how to be a more critical” in
detail. However, the ongoing courses helped students to gain more critical
perspective. In addition, as it can be seen from the next part 4.5 The Whole Class
Discussions, the instructor presented some texts and facilitated the discussion
environment. Therefore, this classroom atmosphere also guided students on the way
of critical reading along with the feedback.
When the Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 are analysed carefully in order to report the
improvement in CRD in spring term relative to the fall term, the students are found
to make progress in each sub-categories of the three discourse types except for the
“word choice” “language” and “overall evaluation” which were categorised under
the evaluative discourse.
92
In terms of word choice, the same number of entries was found to evaluate word
choice of the writer in both fall and spring terms. Thus, there is no improvement
found in this sub-category. In addition, while 7 out of 54 entries evaluated the
language of the writer in the fall term, 9 out of 81 entries evaluated the language of
the writer in the spring term. Furthermore, the students tended to ignore the overall
evaluation of the texts. The reason why they did not discuss about the language and
word choice of the writer/text in the spring term will be discussed in the next
chapter.
4.3.3 The Nature of CRD
4.3.3.1 Interpretive, Evaluative, Responsive Discourse
In this study, critical reading is thought to be a combination of interpretation,
evaluation of the text and producing response/reaction to it. It is found out that all
the students were successful in interpreting the texts. However, while few students
focused on evaluation of the texts, the great majority of them directly responded the
ideas addressed in the texts without evaluating the writer’s style, word choice.
Generally, students summarised their opinions in a sentence rather than touching
upon “disrupting commonplace”, “considering multiple viewpoints”, “focusing on
socio-political” and “taking action” in both fall and spring terms while evaluating
the texts. Therefore, the results showed that the students had tendency towards
responding to the texts rather than evaluating them directly. The reasons of these
results will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter.
93
4.4 The Whole Class Discussions
4.4.1 General Characteristics of the Discussions
All the courses of the FLE 135 and FLE 136 were observed and some of them were
videotaped. However, two of the courses of the FLE 136 in the spring term will be
focused on here to better explore the nature of the critical reading discourse in the
class discussions.
Although the number of the students signed up for the course was twenty four, a
few students generally volunteered to participate in the discussions to share their
opinions and reflect upon the issue. When the instructor asked a question, students
generally answered the questions in chorus. Only a few volunteers, usually the
same students, wanted to share their opinions related to the issue. It is observed that
some of the students who took the floor switched to Turkish (their native tongue)
especially when talking about their own experiences or memories. In addition one
student used a well known Turkish saying to sum up the topic in a nutshell, while
the other student opted for Turkish to use language sarcastically. Furthermore, it is
apparent that they tended to give short answers while speaking in English. It is
observed that the instructor generally guided the discussion and the amount of the
teacher talking time is more than that of student talking time.
94
The reasons for the unwillingness of the students to participate in discussions and
switching to their mother tongue in some cases will be discussed in the next
chapter.
4.4.2. The School is Bad For Children
In the ninth week of the spring term, the instructor presented the text School is Bad
For Children which was written by John Holt in 1969. It is a highly argumentative
and effective essay published in Saturday Evening Post in USA. The instructor took
some sentences from the text and prepared some questions to guide the discussions.
She used power point presentation to present the quotes and the questions .Also she
brought the video of the song “Another Brick on the Wall” by Pink Floyd. As the
students were provided with the course schedule and the reading materials at the
beginning of the semester, they had read the text before they came to the class.
As mentioned earlier, the instructor’s questions guided and directed the discussion.
At the beginning of the lesson, the instructor firstly asked whether the title of essay-
School is bad for children- is a successful one for an argumentative text. All of the
students gave short answers such as “summarising the whole text, attract students,
drawing attention, challenging.” The instructor, as one of the main goals of the
course is to teach writing paragraphs and essays, wanted students to think about the
way of an argumentative essay is written. She emphasised that it should persuade
the readers, so that students should choose their titles in accordance with the types
of text they are going to write. Following the slides, instructor asked who the writer
95
was, where he was from, where the text was published to learn whether the students
were aware of the context of the essay as this awareness is prerequisite for the
critical reading and thinking. The students gave the correct answers in chorus. The
instructor asked about the type of the text and target audience of the text. While
some of the students said that this text was for a specific audience, others said that
the writer targeted the general audience. Showing the related slide, the instructor
explained that if the source of a text is a magazine or newspaper then the target
audience is general.
Regarding the purpose of the text, students agreed that the purpose of the writer
was to persuade readers and criticise the system of the education generally. S24
found the style of the writer “liberal” but he did not explain further why he found
him liberal. “Critical, subjective, not serious, sexist” were the adjectives students
came up with to define the writer’s tone. S 34 said that “he is sexist because he
always says <he> for the students but he uses <she> for a teacher who is a bad
person.” In response, the instructor reminded that the text was written in 1960’s
when that kind of language was not considered as sexist. Then the same student
said “if a writer is sexist, is it a point of view or style of the writer?” The teacher
replied that “it is a style and it can be a point of view. The writer is being sexist in
his/her style.” Then, the instructor asked whether the students found the text easy to
read, fun to read. Students generally answered this question taking language of the
text into consideration. S18 commented “vocabulary is simple, everyday
language...” Further, the instructor opened the video and music “Another Brick in
96
the Wall” began. The instructor tried to encourage brainstorming “look at the image
of the teachers in the clip” and asked the question “what is represented here?” after
pausing the video. In the video, there was a dark school with a gloomy atmosphere
with students whose faces are identical. S24 answered that “machines, making
some kind of students, like a factory”. The teacher referring to the part of the clip
commented that “this is totally a dark picture reminding us of the Gestapo; in
schools usually we have such a terrible system.” S31 referring to the lyrics of the
song “we don’t need no education” objected in Turkish; “ama şarkının isminden de
eğitime ihtiyaç duydukları belli oldu—it is already apparent that they need
education considering the name of the song- This student tried to emphasise the
ungrammaticality of the name. However, S24 disagreed and commented that “it is a
bit ironic way of saying this. This video shows us the education system
encouraging rote learning and critical thinking is totally discouraged.”
When the video finished, the instructor showed the quotes from the texts and asked
students “what does this mean?”and wanted them to reflect on the sentences. These
questions generally aimed at checking comprehension of the students. Most of the
students talked about what they understood from the passage and two of them
talked about their own experiences in the high school. S18 commented: “I think the
problem is that there are lots of silly things and there is force. For example if they
gave me chance to choose what to learn, if they did not force me to memorise some
dates in the history classes I would love history. Maybe I would love to read history
books, novels, rather than memorising the dates.” At the end of the class, the
97
instructor asked; “so we become teachers. What should we do? Should we get rid of
this system?” S26 replied: “start changing the system, we should change
something.” The other student added: “We should rely on practical things not
always theoretical.”
4.4.3. The Teacher Who Changed My Life
The last text that was studied in the class was the “the teacher who changed my
life” by Nicholas Gage. It was not an argumentative text; rather it was a life story of
the writer who was a refugee in the United States. The writer told his process of
adaptation to a new country and especially his teacher “who paved the way for his
career as a famous writer” in ERP.
The teacher gave information about the writer and his background. Also as the
beginning of the story took place in Greece and in the Cold War period, the
instructor talked about the Cold War period and Greek Civil War. The same
questions (context, target audience, tone, the language) the teacher asked for the
text “School is bad for Children” were asked again. The students answered these
questions in chorus. However this time, it is observed that students evaluated the
writer with a more critical stance. The students generally focused on the content
rather than the style of the author. Upon the teacher’s question “what do you think
about the text” one student commented that “I think he mentioned his change,
transformation, he focused his life rather than his teacher.” Another student said
that “I think anybody could help him, teacher does not change anything.” The point
98
that got the most reaction from the students was the teacher’s sending the student’s
paper to a competition without the student’s permission.
Then the teacher drew students’ attention to the words “freedom, Newland” that
was frequently used by the writer while talking about the United States. While S46
student commented that “America is perceived by the land of opportunities by most
of the people.” S26 said that “as a refugee escaping from a war, it is normal to see
any country as a land of opportunities.”
Student 35 criticizing the positive attitude of the writer towards America said that
“the country that changed my life would be better title.” The student 3 added that
“When I first read the text, I think it is a good text, but after thinking critically I
changed my mind. The goal of the text is different. It tries to persuade us that
America is free country and land of opportunities.” When the teacher asked
whether the text tried to impose American values on the readers, all the students
agreed.
At this stage, the teacher reminded while in this text Nicholas Gage wrote about the
good sides of America, he also revealed the Watergate Scandal which was the most
major political scandal in the United States. Student 10 laughed and said in Turkish
“ köprüyü geçene kadar...” which meant “hold a candle to the evil.”
99
The instructor continued “so the American dream came true for him. What is
American dream? Actually, American dream is whatever your position is; you can
climb up the ladders of the success. Everybody can achieve this dream.”
Towards the end of the lesson, the class discussed about the pros and cons of the
United States. They decided that “it can be the most powerful country in the world,
but we have to question the issues such as democracy and freedom in the America.”
Considering the classroom discussions within the framework of CRD, the results
suggested that with the help of the instructor’s feedback, students got better in
looking at the texts in broader perspectives. It was apparent that they got the gist of
the text. They could detect the arguments, the evidence the writer showed and the
writer’s refutations. They started to think possible hidden agenda of the author
besides the ostensible purpose. They developed an awareness of the importance of
the writer’s background, source of the text, the time and the place of the text is
written. They started to ask the question “for whom is the text written?” They
started to evaluate the writer’s words and language although their evaluation was
not given in detail.
As to disrupting the commonplace, considering multiple viewpoints, focusing on
socio political issues and taking action, there is a gradual development in critical
thinking and reading. They took an important step in gaining awareness of
questioning the commonplace, thoughts that everybody believes without thinking,
they broadened their perspectives and suggested logical solutions to the issues.
100
However, instructor’s guidance in the discussions was clearly observed. The
instructor prepared the questions and asked students to answer them. The
discussions were always initiated and stimulated by the instructor. Therefore, the
students were actually on the way to being an autonomous critical reader.
4.5 Summary of the Results
The general results of the analysis may be summarised as follows:
It is observed that the critical reading discourse of the freshman pre-
service teachers of English at METU involves interpretive, evaluative and
responsive discourse.
In general, evaluative discourse is found to be limited in students’
written work and discussions when compared to interpretive and
responsive discourse. They also usually tend to evaluate the content of the
texts rather than form of them.
Interpretive Discourse
Students are found to be successful in understanding the main
argument; however not all of the students could show the evidences of the
writer put forward.
Students do not mention the target audience of the text, context of the
text and most importantly, the hidden agenda of the text which may be
101
considered as one of the most significant indicator of critical reading in
both terms.
Students are found to state the purpose of the writer in spring term more
often than they do in the fall term.
Evaluative Discourse
The evaluation of the “disrupting the commonplace, multiple
viewpoints, focusing on socio-political issues, taking action” are not
observed in the students’ written work.
Word choice, language and tone of the text are also not mentioned as
often.
The students evaluated the refutations and justifications stated by the
writers more often in the spring term when compared to the fall term.
Responsive Discourse
Students are found to agree with the writer more often than they
disagree.
When they disagree with the writer, they always give the reasons for
their counter arguments; however, when they agree with the writer, some
of them ignore to give their own reasons.
102
The students do not focus on the socio political issues and go beyond
the commonplace in their written work.
They are observed to suggest plausible solutions to the problems
addressed in the texts in the spring term.
They are found to take the multiple perspectives into consideration
more often in their entries in the spring term.
The summary of the results of the whole class discussions
Most of the students are found to be reluctant to participate in the
discussions and do not want to raise their hands to voice their opinions.
Some of the students used their mother tongue although the medium of
instruction is English.
Teacher talking time is obviously more than student talking time.
The instructor guides and facilitates the discussions most of the time.
The students and the instructor focus on the content of the texts rather
than the form of them.
The interpretive and evaluative discourses emerge from the whole class
discussions mostly.
103
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Presentation
The answers to the research questions which were provided in the previous chapter
will be discussed thoroughly and the results will be discussed in the light of the
research questions in this last chapter. The pedagogical implications aroused from
the results and the suggestions for further research will be given at the end of the
chapter.
5.2 Discussion of the Results
When the results of the study which were summarised in the previous section are
reviewed, it can be seen that students were successful in critical thinking; however,
it is apparent that they were not as successful in critical reading as they were in
critical thinking. Also they were found to be more successful in responsive
discourse. Although in Alagözlü’s study (2007) students were found to be
unsuccessful in critical thinking skills, the students in this context were found to
think critically.
In addition, in most of the studies reviewed in the second chapter (Lewison et al.
2002, Macknish, 2011; Kuo, 2009) it is emphasised that one should not expect all
104
the dimensions of the critical reading emerge at once. This study also suggests that
it may not be possible to reach all the dimensions of critical reading at once.
Moreover, Macknish (2011) finds out that empowering discourse was rarely
displayed when compared to justficatory and interpretive discourse. Empowering
discourse of the Macknish’s framework included hidden agenda of the writer and
potentially harmful discourse. These items were also in the framework used in this
study. The participants of this study also did not mention these subconstructs in
both their written work and discussions.
In terms of language proficiency, Macknish (2011) suggests that lack of proficiency
did not hinder the process of critical reading. However, most of the students in this
study did not want to participate in the discussions. One of the main reasons for the
low level of participation may be the lack of proficiency in speaking the target
language. Because some of the students were observed to switch to the native
tongue while they were speaking.
In addition to these, three general and important themes seem to come out: the
effect of instruction and feedback on critical reading, the effect of instruction about
academic writing on critical reading, the wash back effect of testing system on
students’ proficiency. Now, these themes will be explained and discussed to better
understand the results of this study.
105
5.2.1 The Effect of Instruction And Feedback On Critical Reading:
As it is mentioned before, this is a descriptive case study, so the researcher never
intervenes in the flow of the course.
However, while setting up the framework to analyse the data, there are some sub-
constructs of the CRD which were compiled by Lewison, Flint, & Sluys (2002)
added to the framework of this study. These are disrupting the commonplace,
focusing on socio-political issues, considering multiple viewpoints and taking
action. These dimensions may be claimed to focus on the power aspect of critical
reading. As Wallace (2003) puts forward there are weak and strong versions of the
critical reading. For her, a weak version refers to the critical thinking while strong
version can be called as critical reading. Therefore, critical reading may involve
disrupting commonplace and focusing on socio-political issues.
Throughout the course, the students were not given any specific instruction on
these dimensions of the critical reading except for taking action. Students were only
encouraged to suggest a solution to the problem addressed in the text in the
Guidelines for The Reading Journals (see Appendix D). The dimensions mentioned
above were both added to the evaluative discourse and responsive discourse.
Therefore, it was explored whether these dimensions would appear in the students’
evaluative and responsive discourses.
The results of the study clearly demonstrate that the instruction on critical reading
is necessary but not sufficient enough to help students to be successful in analysing
106
texts from power dimension. Disrupting the commonplace and focusing on socio-
political issues emerged in students’ responsive discourse to a small extent. On the
contrary, students were observed to be successful in considering multiple
viewpoints while reacting to a debated issue in their entries. However, the students
did not evaluate the texts with regards to the disrupting the commonplace, focusing
on socio-political issues, considering multiple viewpoints and taking action. In the
light of the results, it may be argued that the students should have been instructed
and trained to be able to consider the texts within the dimension of the power.
Hence, it may be claimed that more students might have analysed the texts taking
these dimensions into account if they were provided instruction on them.
As mentioned before, the students were given feedback at regular intervals. They
were also provided with the Grading Criteria for the Reading Journals (see
Appendix F) which the feedback was mostly based on. The instructor usually
wrote “try to be more critical, analyse critically” on the students’ journals to
encourage and facilitate more critical stance. However, it may be argued that the
instruction should have supported the feedback and students may have needed more
guidance in this respect.
Nevertheless, it must be kept in mind that, the syllabus of the course was already
overloaded. The instructor had to focus on the broad issues such as academic
writing, basic research skills, paragraph writing. In implications part, this point will
be discussed in detail.
107
5.2.2 The Effect of Instruction about Academic Writing On Critical Reading
One of the main goals of the course in the spring semester is to teach academic
writing conventions, citation techniques. Students were given instruction on
plagiarism, research skills, paraphrasing, summarising and synthesising mostly.
Hence it is clear that the second term is spared for the development of academic
writing and research skills.
The results clearly indicate that students mentioned the purpose of the writer in
their entries in the spring term more often when compared to the fall term.
Therefore, they learned to mention the purpose of the writer explicitly in their
entries.
In the same vein, in the spring term, the students evaluated the writer’s arguments
and counter arguments to a larger extent when compared to the fall term. Hence it
may be claimed students learned to include the evidences that the writer put
forward in their entries.
The effects of the academic writing may be observed most within the responsive
discourse. In the spring term, they were found to be more successful in offering
both counter and supporting arguments to the writer’s own arguments presented in
the texts. They were able to give their own reasons that explained why they agreed
or disagreed with the writer.
108
Therefore, it may be claimed that the instruction on academic writing foster the
students’ critical thinking abilities more. As Table 4.3 in the previous chapter
points out they could develop plausible arguments to agree with or/and to oppose
the ideas addressed in the texts more often in the spring term. They could also
justify their own arguments. In addition, they got better in considering multiple
viewpoints which can show the development of critical thinking abilities.
5.2.3 The Wash Back Effect of Testing System of Turkish Educational System
The students participated in this study were all graduates of Anatolian Teacher
Training High Schools in Turkey and they got the highest points in the university
entrance exam to be accepted to the department of FLE at METU which is one of
the few universities that only the most successful students in the entrance exam can
be accepted. In addition to this, all the students have to take METU English
Proficiency Exam (EPE) to be exempted from the preparatory school. They all
successfully passed the EPE exam as well.
However, they were observed to be reluctant to participate in the classroom
discussions. The same students were always raising their hands to voice their
opinions and they also expressed their opinions in one or two sentences. Although
the other students were also following the lessons, they were not involved in the
discussions. Some students needed to switch to Turkish to talk about their own
opinions. Therefore, it may indicate that this problem might arise due to their low
levels of proficiency in speaking.
109
One of the most probable reasons for this is the testing system of Turkish
Educational System. The current university entrance exam in Turkey does not test
speaking and writing skills of the students. The exam is a multiple choice test and
the students are required to read, understand and circle the correct answer. The
main skill that is measured in the exam is reading. Therefore, the students who are
preparing for the exam for years do not want to practice speaking, listening and
writing in the schools. Moreover, while one of the principles of the testing is “test
what you teach” (Bachman &Palmer, 1996), it turns out to be “teach what you test”
in Turkey.
Therefore, the students who were focusing on the grammar, vocabulary and reading
skills in high schools, have problems in speaking, listening and writing in their
future studies. Thus, the wash back effect of the testing system may be one of the
reasons for the reluctance for participation in discussions in English.
Another reason may be the lack of motivation in expressing their own opinions and
participating in the lessons. It is probable that students might not have found the
course interesting. In addition, due to the low levels of motivation, they might not
have wanted to take part in the discussions. In order to find out other reasons, the
instructor could have been interviewed to better learn her opinions on low level of
participation. Moreover, students could have been interviewed to ask for their
attitudes towards the course and critical reading.
110
5.3 Implications
This descriptive case study investigates the extent and nature of the CRD of
freshman pre-service teachers of English at METU. There are main implications
arisen from this study.
First of all, the students who participate in the study will become teachers of
English in four years. They may be in the position of choosing the reading
materials, texts, books to teach the language. Therefore, they need to have critical
perspective while selecting and preparing the texts for the lesson. This case study
indicates that critical reading is such a broad concept that it cannot be compacted
into the Advanced Reading and Writing course which has already an overloaded
syllabus. In this study, although the instructor tried to encourage students to have a
more critical stance, students were able to attain it to an extent. They were found to
be successful in critical thinking, but they did not analyse the texts taking the power
perspectives into consideration. Hence, taking the importance of critical reading for
our teachers into account, there is necessity for a course on “Critical Reading” in
the curriculum of ELT departments. At least, there may be an elective course
offered to the students to choose if they want to take. Then, the course may be
evaluated to decide its usefulness for the students at the ELT departments.
As stated before, literacy may both serve as an oppressive force and source of
empowerment for everyone in society. Therefore, it is not only teachers of English
111
but also everyone in a society needs this course to gain awareness of the
manipulative force of the language and texts over their lives.
5.4. Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
The main aim is to observe and describe the critical reading discourse emerged
among students throughout the courses. Therefore, more class time could be spared
for the instruction on critical reading.
To better explore the students’ critical reading discourse, students may be provided
with
some specific cases to elicit their responses. In addition, students also may be
instructed about “disrupting commonplace, focusing on socio-political issues.”
The study is a case study conducted with the freshman pre-service teachers of
English at METU. Therefore, the sample size of the study can be increased to better
understand the extent and nature of Critical Reading Discourse. Pre-service
teachers of English in their second, third or last years at the department could be
observed to explore their critical reading discourse.
The students were not interviewed to ask for their opinions and perceptions about
the course. It may be asked whether they find the course useful or not. In the same
vein, the instructor may be asked for her opinions about the course and critical
reading.
112
The students’ gender was not specified in the research, the differences between
female and male students may also be investigated with regards to critical reading.
The critical reading discourse of the same students in their first language could be
investigated to observe whether the instruction on foreign language reading effect
first language reading as well.
Last but not least, CRD of students in other departments at different levels of
proficiency in English could be investigated to understand the CRD of the language
learners across different levels.
113
REFERENCES
Alagozlu, N. (2007). Critical Thinking and Voice in EFL Writing. Asian EFL Journal
, 9(3), 118-136.
Atkinson, D. (1997). A Critical Approach to Critical Thinking in TESOL. TESOL
Quarterly , 31 (1), 71-94.
Auberbach, E., & Burgress, D. (1985). The Hidden Curriculum of Survival ESL.
TESOL Quarterly , 19, 475-495.
Avon, C. (2000). Helping ESL and EFL University Students Read Critically : A 2000's
Challenge. ERIC ED 450 592 .
Bachman, L. F., & Palmer, A. S. (1996). Language Testing in Practice: Designing and
Developing Useful Language Tests. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartu, H. (2002). A Critical Reading Course . İstanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.
Belet, D., & Dal, S. (2010). The use of storytelling to develop the primary school
students’ critical reading skill: the primary education pre-service teachers’
opinions. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences , 9, 1830–1834.
Canagarajah, A. S. (1999). Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching. Oxford
Oxford University Press.
Cervetti, G., & Pardales M.J., D. J. (2001). A Tale of Differences : Comparing the
Tradition, perspectives, and educational goals of critical reading and critical
literacy. Reading Online , 4 (9).
Clarke, L. W., & Whitney, E. (2009). Walking in Their Shoes: Using Multiple-
114
Perspectives Texts as a Bridge to Critical Literacy. The Reading Teacher , 62
(6), 530-534.
Comber, B., & Cormack, P. (1997). Looking Beyond `Skills' and `Processes':Literacy as
Social and Cultural Practices in Classrooms. READING , 22-29.
Davidson, B. W. (1998). Comments on Dwight Atkinson's "A Critical Approach to
Critical Thinking in TESOL": A Case for Critical Thinking in the English
Language Classroom. TESOL Quarterly , 32 (1), 119-123.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. New York : Harlow, Eng. .
Fisher, A. (2008). Teaching comprehension and critical literacy: investigating guided
reading in three primary classrooms. Literacy , 42 (1), 19-28.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder.
Freire, P., & Mecedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. South
Hadley, Mass: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.
Grabe, W. (2002). Reading in a Second Language. In R. B. Kaplan, The Oxford
Handbook of Applied Linguistics (pp. 49-60). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Graman, T. (1988). Education for Humanisation: Applying Paulo Freire's Pedagogy to
Learning a Second Language. Harvard Educational Review , 58 (4), 433-448.
Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical Literacy: Challenges and
Questions for ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly , 33 (3), 528-544.
Huang, S.-y. (2009). EFL Reading Through a Critical Literacy Perspective. English
Teaching & Learning , 33 (3), 51-93.
Huang, S.-y. (2011). Reading "Further and Beyond the Text": Student Perspectives of
Critical Literacy in EFL Reading and Writing. Journal of Adolescents&Adult
Literacy , 55 (2), 145-154.
115
Içmez, S. (2009). Motivation and Critical Reading in EFL Classrooms: A case of ELT
Preparatory Students. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education , 5 (2), 123-
147.
Içmez, S. (2005). The Impact of a Critical Reading Course in the Turkish High School
Context. An Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation sumitted to University of
Warwick.
Irfaner, S. (2002). Implementation of the components of critical thinking in an ENG 101
course in the first year English program at Bilkent University. An Unpublished
MA Thesis submitted to Bilkent University.
Janks, H. (2000). Domination, Access,Diversity and Design: A synthesis for critical
literacy education. Language Awareness , 52 (2), 175-186.
Johnson, R. B. (1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research.
Education , 118 (2), 282-292.
Kramer-Dahl, A. (2001). Importing Critical Literacy Pedagogy: Does it Have to Fail?
Language and Education , 15 (1), 14-32.
Kuo, J.-m. (2009). Critical Literacy and a Picture-Book-Based Dialogue Activity in
Taiwan. Asia Pacific Education Review , 10 (4), 483-494.
Lewison, M., Flint, A. S., & Sluys, K. V. (2002). Taking On Critical Literacy: The
Journey of Newcomers and Novices. Language Arts , 79 (5), 383-391.
Luke, A. (2000). Critical Literacy in Australia: A matter of context and standpoint.
Journal of Adolescent &Adult Literacy , 43 (5), 448-461.
Luke, A. (2004). Two takes on the critical. In B. Norton, & K. Toohey, Critical
Pedagogies and Language Learning (pp. 21-29). Cambridge; New York:
Cambridge University Press.
116
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research : methodology and
design . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Macknish, C. J. (2011). Understanding Critical Reading in an ESL Class in Singapore.
Tesol Journal , 2 (4), 444-472.
McDonough, J., & McDonough, S. (1997). Research Methods for English Language
Teachers. London ; New York : St. Martin's Press.
McKay, S. (2006). Researching Second Language Classrooms. Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Molden, K. (2007). Critical Literacy, the Right Answer for the Reading Classroom:
Strategies to Move beyond Comprehension for Reading Improvement. Reading
Improvement , 44 (1), 50-56.
Norton, B., & Toohey, K. (2004). Critical Pedagogies and Language Learning.
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical Applied Linguistics: a critical introduction. Mahwah,
N.J: L. Erlbaum.
Shaull, R. (1970). Foreword. In P. Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (pp. 29-35). New
York: Herder and Herder.
Siegel, M., & Fernandez, S. (1996). Critical Approaches. In R. Barr, Handbook of
Reading Research (Vol. 3, pp. 141-151). Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assesing Critical Thinking in the Writing of Japanese University
Students. Written Communication , 18 (4), 506-548.
Tufan, D. (2008). Critical thinking skills of prospective teachers: Foreign language
education case at the Middle East Technical University. An Unpublished M.A
Thesis submitted to Middle East Technical University.
117
Wallace, C. (1999). Critical Language Awareness: Key Principles for a Course in
Critical Reading. Language Awareness , 8 (2), 98-110.
Wallace, C. (2005). Critical Reading in Language Education. Basingstoke : Palgrave
Macmillan Limited .
Yagcılar, H. (2010). Critical Thinking in Teaching English as a Foreign Language:
From Theory to Practice. An Unpublished MA Thesis submitted to
IstanbulUniversity.
118
APPENDIX A : FLE 135 Course Outline
FLE 135.01 Advanced Reading and Writing I
2010-2011 Fall
Tuesday 14.40-17.30 (EF15)
Yasemin Tezgiden
Office Hours: Tuesday 9.00-11.00 (B05)
Course Description
This course presents a wide range of authentic reading materials including
newspapers, journals, reviews and academic texts in order to comprehend contrasting
viewpoints and to predict and identify main ideas and to decode intersentential clues.
It also aims to equip students with intensive and extensive reading habits. Critical
thinking skills such as synthesizing information or analyzing a problem as well as
reacting on the basis of evaluation are fostered. Such sub-skills of reading are
employed by the students’ in their writings. Students also analyze and produce
different types of writings; build up writing skills emphasizing the organization,
coherence, and cohesion and such sub-skills as summarizing, outlining, and
paraphrasing at paragraph level. The use of spelling and punctuation conventions as
well as non-alphabetic symbol use will be practiced as well.
Course Materials:
We will be using the following book as the course book:
Gülen, G., Hasanbasoglu, B., Şeşen, E., Tokdemir, G. (2009). Academic English:
Survival Skills I (Rev. ed.). Ankara: Yargı Press.
Extensive Reading Pack to be provided by the instructor.
You will need a variety of good monolingual English dictionaries, including
thesaurus and dictionary of collocations.
119
Course Content (Skill level)
Reading
Detailed reading every week focusing on the following subskills:
- Previewing (title, writers, publication info, pictures and layout)
- Skimming (checking the predictions of previewing and having further
predictions)
- Scanning (specific information)
- Detailed reading comprehension
- Guessing the meaning of unknown words
- Strengthening the use of different types of dictionaries
- Making inferences from a reading text
- Critical reading (Purpose, audience, style and tone, method of
development)
- Using the text for writing
Writing
Paragraph writing
- Expository
paragraph
- Reaction-Response
paragraph
Essay writing
- Expository essay
Evaluation
Quizzes: % 5
Mid-term % 20
Final % 20
Reading Journal % 20
Graded Writing Tasks % 35
120
Course Requirements:
Reading journal:
As reading is a skill to be developed and practiced, students are encouraged to do a
great deal of reading outside the classroom. Reading regularly has many rewards as it
improves vocabulary, spelling, reading speed, comprehension, grammar and writing
style. If you are a habitual reader, all of the above mentioned linguistic and thinking
skills will improve painlessly. To help students develop the habit of reading in English,
students will be asked to read articles/short stories/newspaper articles they choose from
the extensive reading pack. After reading several texts each week, students will choose
one and write a journal entry (at least one paragraph) outside the classroom about their
reflections on the text they have selected (no less than 12 journal entries in total). This
journal will be due on November 2nd for a preliminary check (at least 5 entries should
be in place) and January 4th
for a final check.
In their journals, students will respond to the ideas they encounter in reading. By using
the journals, learners will be engaged in a dialogue with what the writer says (content)
and how the writer says it (form). In their reactions, students can explore what they like
or don’t like about the essays and what seems effective and what doesn’t. Writing in the
journal about the things they have read will reinforce learners’ understanding of the
text. In addition, learners will do a great deal of writing practice by journal writing.
In the last three weeks of the semester, students will be FREE to choose the texts they
wish to read from outside resources for their journal entries. The texts students have
selected will be submitted to the instructor at the end of the term together with the
journals. Texts chosen by the students will be put in the extensive reading pack in the
following terms.
Graded Writing Tasks
Students will be asked to write one graded expository paragraph, one graded reaction
paragraph and one expository essay during the term based on their journal entries. The
guidelines for each assignment will be given one week before the due date. For these
tasks, students will basically work on the journal entries they have already written. In
accordance with the guidelines given by the teacher, they will either revise the
paragraphs they have already written in their journals or write another paragraph on the
same topic from a different perspective.
121
Quizzes Quizzes will be administered from time to time to check students’ involvement with
class work and their progress in learning new vocabulary. The quizzes will be
unannounced.
Course Schedule
Week Date Content to be
studied
Reading Writing
Week
I
September
28
Introduction:
General outline of
the course
Week
II
October 5 Previewing
Skimming
Identifying points
of reference
Reading text: “Your
masterpiece –
yourself”
Week
III
October 12 Scanning
The Paragraph
Reading text:
“Change of face …
Change of self?”
Week
IV
October 19 Unity and
coherence
Active learning:
speed reading
Reading text:
“Online identities”
Graded writing
1: expository
paragraph
Week
V
October 26 Guessing words
from context
122
Cognates
Week
VI
November
2
Parts of the word
Active learning:
Graphic organizers
& highlighting and
note-taking
Reading Journal-
PRELIMINARY
CHECK
Week
VII
November
9
Using dictionaries
Reading text: “This
is your space”
Graded writing
2: reaction
paragraph
Week
VIII
November
16
NATIONAL
HOLIDAY
NO CLASS
Week
IX
November
23
MID-TERM
Week
X
November
30
Reading
between the lines
Understanding
figurative language
Reading text:
“The future of
reading in online
revolution”
Week
XI
December
7
Making inferences
Week
XII
December
14
The Essay:
Thesis statement
and outline
Reading text:
“Viewers reveal
changing habits”
Week
XIII
December
21
The Essay:
Introduction &
conclusion
Identifying the
Reading text:
“Kids today”
Graded writing
3: expository
essay-
outline
123
writer’s technique
Week
XIV
December
28
Reading text:
“It’s time to grow up
- later”
Week
XV
January
4
Graded writing 3
- expository
essay- final
draft
Reading Journal-
FINAL CHECK
124
APPENDIX B : FLE 136 Course Outline
FLE 136 (01) Advanced Reading and Writing II
2010-2011 Spring
Monday 8.40-11.30 (Z23)
Yasemin Tezgiden
Course Description
This course is a continuation of Advanced Reading and Writing I, to promote higher
level thinking skills. By processing a variety of different authentic reading texts,
students will develop superior-level sub-skills of reading namely, making inferences
and deductions, and reading between the lines. Students will relate inferences from
the text to real life, and gain insights into the cultural similarities and differences. By
means of the awareness gained from the texts, students will analyze, synthesize and
evaluate information, and therefore react to readings. Students will also analyze and
produce different types of essays (e.g. comparison and contrast, classification, cause-
and-effect analysis, argumentative and reaction-response) that are unified, coherent
and organized. In addition to the integration of reading with writing, students will
develop basic research skills including library/internet search, and basic research
report writing skills such as citing, paraphrasing and referencing.
Course Materials:
We will be using the following book:
Gülcü, M., Gülen, G., Şeşen, E., Tokdemir, G. (2009). Academic English: Survival
Skills II.
Extensive Reading Pack to be provided by the instructor.
You will need a variety of good monolingual English dictionaries, including
thesaurus and dictionary of collocations.
125
Course Content (Skill level)
Reading
Detailed reading every week focusing on the following subskills:
- Detailed reading comprehension
- Critical reading (Purpose, audience, style and tone, method of
development)
- Using the text for writing
Writing
Essay writing
- Reaction-Response
Essay
- Argumentative
Essay
Citation Techniques
- Paraphrasing and
summarizing
- In-text
- End-text citation
- APA style
Plagiarism
- Turn-it-in
Evaluation
Reading 40%
Mid-term 25 %
Quizzes 15 %
Writing 60%
Journal writing 20 %
(Free writing 10 %)
(Reaction-response essays 10 %)
Argumentative Essay 1 25 %
(Bibliography + first draft +final draft)
Argumentative Essay 2 15 %
(Final draft)
126
Course Requirements:
Conducting library-internet research & writing a bibliography:
Each student will conduct library and internet search for writing their argumentative
essays. They will come up with a list of at least two academic books and four
research articles written in English. They will submit their bibliography on March
21st. The topics students will work on are as follows:
The spread of English
Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
Multiple intelligences and/or emotional intelligence
Imperialism
Brain drain
Globalization
Gender differences
Power (military power or soft power)
Education
Media
Body language
Reading journal:
To help students improve their reading skills in English, students will be asked to read
articles/short stories/newspaper articles they choose from the extensive reading pack.
After reading several texts each week, students will choose one and write a journal entry
outside the classroom about their reflections on the text they have selected (no less than
6 journal entries in total). The first three entries will be free writing practice on the
reading texts. The last three entries will be five-paragraph reaction essays. This journal
will be due on April 11.
In their journals, students will respond to the ideas they encounter in reading. By using
the journals, learners will be engaged in a dialogue with what the writer says (content)
and how the writer says it (form). In their reactions, students can explore what they like
or don’t like about the essays and what seems effective and what doesn’t. Writing in the
journal about the things they have read will reinforce learners’ understanding of the
text. In addition, learners will do a great deal of writing practice by journal writing.
127
Course Schedule
Week Date Content to be studied Reading Writing
Week
I
February
21
Introduction: General
outline of the course
Identifying the writer’s
technique
Week
II
February
28
Research Skills
Writer’s Block
Reading text:
“The Galling Rise of
English” - RP
Journal
Writing 1-
free
writing
Week
III
March 7 Plagiarism and
direct quotation
Reading text:
“Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk” –CB, p. 37
Journal
writing 2-
free
writing
Week
IV
March 14 Citation Reading text:
“Multiple
intelligences” - RP
Journal
writing 3-
free
writing
Week
V
March 21 Turn-it-in
Reaction and response
essay
Reading text:
“It’s a Rich Man’s
World” – CB –
p. 199
Journal
writing 4-
reaction
and
response
essay
Bibliogra
phy due
Week
VI
March 28 Paraphrasing Reading text:
“Sex, Sighs, and
Conversation” -RP
Journal
writing 5-
reaction
128
and
response
essay
Week
VII
April 4 Synthesizing Reading text:
“The Changing Face of
Power”, CB, p. 120
Journal
writing 6-
reaction
and
response
essay
Week
VIII
April 11 Mid-term Reading
journal
check -
due
Week
IX
April 18 Argumentative essay
Reading text:
“School is Bad for
Children” - RP
Week
X
April 25 Punctuation Reading text:
“The Media: The
medium of the
powerful” – CB, p. 142
Argumen
tative
Essay 1-
Outline
due
Week
XI
May 2 Summarizing Reading text:
“The Teacher Who
Changed My Life” -
RP
Argument
ative
Essay- 1st
Draft for
peer
review
Week
XII
May 9 Reading text:
“Where do we stand?”
Argumen
tative
129
- RP Essay-
Final
Draft due
Week
XIII
May 16 Reading text:
Research article 1
Week
XIV
May 23 Reading text:
Research article 2
Argumen
tative
Essay 2-
Final
DRAFT-
due
FINAL
DAY
130
APPENDIX C: FLE 135 Guidelines For Reading Journal
FLE 135 GUIDELINES FOR READING JOURNAL
Your reading journal is an opportunity for you to read and think & read and write!
By using this journal, you will improve your reading skills, writing skills and of
course your critical and creative thinking skills!
So far you have done a good job in terms of practising reading, writing and
creative thinking. Now it is time to do more critical reflection!!!
Here is some information for you on how to write a REACTION PARAGRAPH
(also see pp. 80-81 in your coursebook):
What is REACTION?1
The term “reaction” or “response” refers to the reflection of our ideas, opinions and
feelings on something one experiences, sees, hears, and reads. One can respond or
react to a variety of things that can range from daily events to works of art.
In an academic context, however, reaction-response usually involves commenting on
ideas or arguments expressed in a text that one reads.
HOW TO WRITE REACTION PARAGRAPHS?
There are certain steps to follow when writing reaction-response paragraphs:
STAGE 1: ANALYZING THE TEXT CRITICALLY
Before reacting to a text, analyze it critically.
1. Preview and skim/scan the text. Look at the title, author, source, length,
date of the text, and the writing context. Measure your existing knowledge
about the author and subject.
2. Read the text. Get a general understanding of the text. Make predictions
and hypothesize on the text. Develop expectations. Use your background
knowledge: What do you already know about the subject?
3. Reread the text, this time more actively. Highlight or underline key
points. Find main points, important examples, effective quotations,
striking phrases, repeated words, weaknesses, or strengths. Take notes in
the margins by jotting down main points, questions, ideas that you agree
or disagree with. You can also use graphic organizers to see the
relationship between ideas.
4. Deal with unknown vocabulary. Try to guess the meaning of unfamiliar
words or look up the meaning of unknown words in a dictionary.
1 The information used in this handout is adapted from Academic English: Survival Skills II.
131
5. Identify the writer’s technique. Identify the writer’s purpose and
audience: Who is the writer addressing? How is the writer trying to
influence his/her reader’s way of thinking or acting? Why? Then, identify
the tone, attitude, style of the writer: What do you know about the writer
(gender, race, age, affiliations …) Does the writer’s background influence
the essay? What is the writer’s viewpoint and emotional stance? What is
the tone of the text? Is it humorous, ironic, melancholic, or aggressive?
6. Analyze the language and the structure. Analyze the language. Is the
language biased, rude, sexist, straightforward, informal, technical,
sarcastic, or humorous? Analyze the structure. Examine the organization.
What is the pattern of development (e.g. compare-contrast)? Are the ideas
presented in a clear and logical way? Is the text easy to follow?
7. Make inferences. Evaluate contextual clues, use background knowledge,
and draw logical conclusions.
8. Evaluate the evidence and supports. Which supporting techniques have
been used? Is the evidence strong or not? Is it appropriate and sufficient?
Is there anything left out? What are the weaknesses (sweeping
generalizations, logical fallacies, irrelevant, or unclear ideas) and
strengths?
9. Determine your stance. Ask yourself questions as you read and
personalize. What do I feel about what I have read? What do I
agree/disagree with? Can I empathize with the situation? Do I have
enough background information on this topic? (If not, do research!) Did I
have a similar experience? Have I heard or read of anything that applies to
what the writer says in the article?
10. Do extensive research. Learn more about the topic, consider other views,
provide support for your own ideas.
STAGE 2: DECIDING ON YOUR REACTION
You can react and respond to a text in different ways, i.e. to the content, language,
style or to all of them. In short, you can:
1. agree with the points in the text or the way they have been presented;
2. disagree with the points in the text or the way they have been presented;
3. partially agree or disagree with the points in the text or the way they
have been presented;
4. agree with ideas but disapprove of the writer’s language, tone, attitude
or style;
5. pinpoint weaknesses and strengths in the argument and/or provide
additional aspects, alternatives, and solutions to them, or
6. evaluate ideas and presentation as sexist, biased, irrelevant, subjective,
disappointing or angry.
132
IMPORTANT REMINDER: Although it is not normally advisable to use personal
pronouns in academic writing, it is not wrong to use personal pronouns while writing
a reaction paragraph as this type of paragraph requires personal views. When writing
your reaction, you may use the following expressions to reflect your own idea.
I think that …
It seems to me that …
I feel that …
In my opinion …
I believe that …
Without a doubt , … is …
While it may be true that …, I think it is …
(Un)Like the writer, I believe …
I do not agree with this idea.
I disagree with …
I cannot agree with him/her there.
I think the writer is wrong.
I am not sure I agree.
STAGE 3: ORGANIZING IDEAS INTO AN OUTLINE
After writing your topic sentence, it is useful to make an outline of your reaction.
STAGE 4: WRITING THE REACTION PARAGRAPH
Having analyzed the original text that you are reacting to and prepared the outline,
you can now start producing your paragraph. Write a brief summary of the original
text referring to the main idea and the main supporting points discussed in the
original text. Then show your reaction by agreeing, disagreeing, partially agreeing
with, or by evaluating the text from other perspectives.
IMPORTANT REMINDER:
When you are reacting to a text, do not confuse total agreement with the repetition of
the original text. When you agree with the writer’s ideas, you should not simply
repeat his/her arguments, but rather explain why you agree with the writer by
presenting your own reasons. You should not mirror the original text, but use
different supporting techniques to show that you share the same idea on the subject.
133
Sample Student Paragraph I:
I agree with the writer that some of the environmental policies undertaken by the rich
countries hurt the poor. The writer states that richer nations throw away their household
waste like plastic bottles or cans and ship them to poorer nations (Megg, 2009, para. 2).
This is unfortunately a reality. Consumption is greater in rich and industrialized
countries than in poorer countries, which can be supported by the report by The New
Internationalist … Another argument I agree with in Megg’s article is that rich nations
dump their electronic waste onto poorer nations (2009, para. 3-4.). Undoubtedly, this is
another way of exploiting the poor. Rather than being cycled, electronic waste, which
contains chemicals such as mercury or lead, is sent to developing countries. …
Therefore, I find Megg’s criticisms regarding waste management of rich countries both
realistic and valid.
Sample Student Paragraph II:
I disagree with the writer’s viewpoints on oursourcing. Megg (2009, para. 10-11) claims
that outsourcing works for the benefit of the rich countries by creating inequality. To
begin with, the writer argues that oursourcing does not help the economies of the poor
nations, claiming that such a positive approach towards outsourcing would be “looking
on the bright side” (para. 11). However, there is sound evidence that outsourcing
positively affects the economy of the countries which offer outsourcing services. First,
outsourcing helps national economy flourish as there is flow of money around the
country. Due to the high profits in the outsourcing business, many small countries such
as the Philippines or India are improving their economic growth. In addition, it provides
people with job opportunities, which keeps the economy alive. According to the 2008
report of Software Quality Experts, it is estimated that outsourcing will create 350,000
jobs by 2010 world wide. The other argument I disagree with is the writer’s assertion
that rich countries take advantage of the poor by paying them less than what the same
job would require in a developed country (Megg, 2009, para. 11). However, one needs
to compare not just salaries, but the purchasing power of these salaries in different
countries. An Information Technologies (IT) professional in India, for instance, may be
far better off in terms of life standards, despite being paid only a third of the U.S. salary.
Thus, instead of comparing the wages, purchasing power of the money one earns in
different countries should be considered before making such a claim.
134
APPENDIX D: FLE 136 Guidelines For Reading Journal
FORMAT
Your Reading Journal must be in a ruled spiral notebook. You may type your
reading journal or hand-write in pen. All ink (printer, pen) must be blue or black and
no larger than 14 font. Your response should be double-spaced no matter it is
written or typed. Your typed sheets should be neatly glued on to the pages (no edges
hanging over the notebook paper). Please do not forget to leave margins. All journal
entries will be placed on the right-hand page. The left-hand page is for your
creativity (illustrations, a letter to a character, notes to me about the text). One left-
page entry is required for each response.
Each entry must contain the following information at the top of the right-hand page:
Date
Title of the text
Author
Explain why you chose this article
Responses must be neatly written in complete sentences and must relate to the text.
Quality and completeness of the response counts. Thought should go into your entry.
Please give examples from the text or your own life. Do not forget to give each
response a title.
HOW TO WRITE JOURNAL ENTRIES?
Your reading journal is an opportunity for you to read and think & read and write!
By using this journal, you will improve your reading skills, writing skills and of
course your critical and creative thinking skills!
What is REACTION?2
The term “reaction” or “response” refers to the reflection of our ideas, opinions and
feelings on something one experiences, sees, hears, and reads. One can respond or
react to a variety of things that can range from daily events to works of art.
In an academic context, however, reaction-response usually involves commenting on
ideas or arguments expressed in a text that one reads.
HOW TO WRITE REACTION-RESPONSE ESSAYS?
2 The information used in this handout is adapted from Academic English: Survival Skills II.
135
There are certain steps to follow when writing reaction-response paragraphs:
STAGE 1: ANALYZING THE TEXT CRITICALLY
Before reacting to a text, analyze it critically.
11. Preview and skim/scan the text. Look at the title, author, source, length,
date of the text, and the writing context. Measure your existing knowledge
about the author and subject.
12. Read the text. Get a general understanding of the text. Make predictions
and hypothesize on the text. Develop expectations. Use your background
knowledge: What do you already know about the subject?
13. Reread the text, this time more actively. Highlight or underline key
points. Find main points, important examples, effective quotations,
striking phrases, repeated words, weaknesses, or strengths. Take notes in
the margins by jotting down main points, questions, ideas that you agree
or disagree with. You can also use graphic organizers to see the
relationship between ideas.
14. Deal with unknown vocabulary. Try to guess the meaning of unfamiliar
words or look up the meaning of unknown words in a dictionary.
15. Identify the writer’s technique. Identify the writer’s purpose and
audience: Who is the writer addressing? How is the writer trying to
influence his/her reader’s way of thinking or acting? Why? Then, identify
the tone, attitude, style of the writer: What do you know about the writer
(gender, race, age, affiliations …) Does the writer’s background influence
the essay? What is the writer’s viewpoint and emotional stance? What is
the tone of the text? Is it humorous, ironic, melancholic, or aggressive?
16. Analyze the language and the structure. Analyze the language. Is the
language biased, rude, sexist, straightforward, informal, technical,
sarcastic, or humorous? Analyze the structure. Examine the organization.
What is the pattern of development (e.g. compare-contrast)? Are the ideas
presented in a clear and logical way? Is the text easy to follow?
17. Make inferences. Evaluate contextual clues, use background knowledge,
and draw logical conclusions.
18. Evaluate the evidence and supports. Which supporting techniques have
been used? Is the evidence strong or not? Is it appropriate and sufficient?
Is there anything left out? What are the weaknesses (sweeping
generalizations, logical fallacies, irrelevant, or unclear ideas) and
strengths?
19. Determine your stance. Ask yourself questions as you read and
personalize. What do I feel about what I have read? What do I
agree/disagree with? Can I empathize with the situation? Do I have
enough background information on this topic? (If not, do research!) Did I
have a similar experience? Have I heard or read of anything that applies to
what the writer says in the article?
20. Do extensive research. Learn more about the topic, consider other views,
provide support for your own ideas.
136
STAGE 2: DECIDING ON YOUR REACTION
You can react and respond to a text in different ways, i.e. to the content, language,
style or to all of them. In short, you can:
7. agree with the points in the text or the way they have been presented;
8. disagree with the points in the text or the way they have been presented;
9. partially agree or disagree with the points in the text or the way they
have been presented;
10. agree with ideas but disapprove of the writer’s language, tone, attitude
or style;
11. pinpoint weaknesses and strengths in the argument and/or provide
additional aspects, alternatives, and solutions to them, or
12. evaluate ideas and presentation as sexist, biased, irrelevant, subjective,
disappointing or angry.
IMPORTANT REMINDER: Although it is not normally advisable to use personal
pronouns in academic writing, it is not wrong to use personal pronouns while writing
a reaction paragraph as this type of paragraph requires personal views. When writing
your reaction, you may use the following expressions to reflect your own idea.
I think that …
It seems to me that …
I feel that …
In my opinion …
I believe that …
Without a doubt , … is …
While it may be true that …, I think it is …
(Un)Like the writer, I believe …
I do not agree with this idea.
I disagree with …
I cannot agree with him/her there.
I think the writer is wrong.
I am not sure I agree.
137
STAGE 3: ORGANIZING IDEAS INTO AN OUTLINE
After writing your topic sentence, it is useful to make an outline of your reaction.
STAGE 4: WRITING THE REACTION-RESPONSE ESSAY
Having analyzed the original text that you are reacting to and prepared the outline, you
can now start producing your essay. Write a brief summary of the original text
referring to the main idea and the main supporting points discussed in the original text.
Then show your reaction by agreeing, disagreeing, partially agreeing with, or by
evaluating the text from other perspectives.
IMPORTANT REMINDER:
When you are reacting to a text, do not confuse total agreement with the repetition of
the original text. When you agree with the writer’s ideas, you should not simply
repeat his/her arguments, but rather explain why you agree with the writer by
presenting your own reasons. You should not mirror the original text, but use
different supporting techniques to show that you share the same idea on the subject.
Writing the Introduction Paragraph:
The introduction paragraph should introduce the text and your reaction to it.
Reference to the original text : Give the title, author, and publication
(First sentence) information of the original text
Brief summary of the text : Write a brief summary that includes the
main
(Sentences 2,3,4 and sometimes 5) idea and the main supporting points
discussed
in the original text
The Thesis Statement : Show your reaction by agreeing,
disagreeing,
(The last sentence(s)) partially agreeing with, or by evaluating the
text from other perspectives.
Developing the Reaction:
138
The body paragraphs should contain supports for your thesis statement.
Topic sentence
(your response to/analysis of points in the article)
A direct quotation or paraphrased statement from the article
Proof and support
Writing the Conclusion Paragraph:
The conclusion paragraph should bring your essay to a close without introducing a new
idea.
Restatement of your thesis statement
AND/OR
A very brief, concise summary of your main points
AND
A concluding technique
See pp. 213-215 in your course book for a sample reaction-response essay!
139
APPENDIX E: Guiding Questions For In-Class Reading Texts
FLE 136 GUIDING QUESTIONS FOR IN-CLASS READING TEXTS
1. Who is the author of the text?
2. Where and when was the text published?
3. What is the text type (newspaper article, magazine article, journal article, short
story, etc.)?
4. How many BODY paragraphs are there in the text?
5. Has the author used an introductory strategy? Is it effective?
6. What is the PURPOSE of the author in writing this text (to inform, to
persuade, to describe, entertain, to criticize, to narrate)?
7. Who is the TARGET AUDIENCE (general audience, specific audience)?
8. Can you identify the writer’s point of view (feminist, liberal, religious, etc.)?
9. What is the TONE of the text (objective/subjective, serious/light-hearted,
confused, angry, optimistic/pessimistic, sarcastic, humorous, critical, etc.)?
10. What are the KEYWORDs of the text?
11. What is the main idea of the text? Is it stated explicitly or implicitly?
12. Has the auther used a concluding strategy? Is it effective?
13. Is there a certain pattern of organization used in the text (cause-effect,
comparison-contrast, process, argumentation, etc.)?
14. Does the author use SYNONYMS to achieve coherence in the text?
15. How does the author achieve coherence between paragraphs?
140
APPENDIX F : FLE 135 : Reading Journal Rubric
Your Reading Journal must be in a ruled spiral notebook. You may type your
reading journal or hand-write in pen. All ink (printer, pen) must be blue or black and
no larger than 14 font. Your response should be double-spaced no matter it is
written or typed. Your typed sheets should be neatly glued on to the pages (no edges
hanging over the notebook paper). Please do not forget to leave margins. All journal
entries will be placed on the right-hand page. The left-hand page is for your
creativity (illustrations, a letter to a character, notes to me about the text). One left-
page entry is required for each response.
Each entry must contain the following information at the top of the right-hand page:
Date
Title of the text
Author
Explain why you chose this article
Responses must be neatly written in complete sentences and must relate to the text.
Quality and completeness of the response counts. Thought should go into your entry.
Please give examples from the text or your own life. Do not forget to give each
response a title.
141
Category Fully Meeting
Expectations
4
Meeting Expectations
3
Not Meeting
Expectations
1
Ideas/Content
Entries show evidence
of reflection about what
you’re reading and
original ideas not
summaries, or “stories.”
You always attempt
deeper thinking in your
writing.
Entries include some
reflection about what
you’re reading original
thoughts but also lots of
summaries, or “stories.”
You usually attempt
deeper thinking in your
writing.
Entries do
not show
reflection
about what
you’re
reading.
Entries are
confusing to
read.
Evidence from
text.
Examples and
references from the text
are provided in detail
where necessary.
Examples and
references from the text
are provided but more
detail is often needed.
Not enough
detail is
included in
examples
from the text
to show the
reader what
part of the
text is being
discussed.
Presentation
Presentation is very
clear. Journals are
always double-spaced
and neatly written or
typed. A title is always
included for each entry
including the date, title,
author and the reason
Presentation is
adequate.
Journals are double-
spaced and fairly neatly
presented. Titles and the
relevant information are
usually included.
Presentation
is not clear.
Proper
format has
been
attempted
only.
Fluency Journals are always easy
to read and understand.
Journals are mostly easy
to read and understand.
Journals are
often
difficult to
read and
understand.
Quantity All journal entries are
one-page double-spaced
(written) or half- a page
typed (12 pt) or more.
One or two journals are
not quite one-page.
Many journal
entries are
not the
required
length.
Total mark: /20
142
Appendix G: The Students’ Performances in the The Whole Class Discussions according to the Critical Reading Discourse
Framework
Interpretive Discourse Evaluative discourse Reactionary discourse
argum
ent
evid
ence
purp
ose
hid
den
agen
da
targ
et a
udie
nce
conte
xt
refu
tati
on
just
ific
atio
n
word
choic
e
languag
e
tone
dis
rupti
ng t
he
c.
mult
iple
vie
wpoin
ts
soci
o p
oli
tica
l
Tak
ing a
ctio
n
over
all
eval
uat
ion
counte
r ar
gum
ent
reas
on
support
ing a
rgum
ent
reas
on
dis
rupti
ng t
he
c.
mult
iple
vie
wpoin
ts
soci
opoli
tica
l
takin
g a
ctio
n
0.3
+ - + + + - - + + + - - - + + + + + + +
0.4
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
143
Appendix H: The Critical Reading Discourse Framework for the Reading Journals
wee
ks
tex
ts
Interpretive Discourse Evaluative Discourse Reactionary Discourse
argum
ent
evid
ence
purp
ose
hid
den
agen
da
targ
et a
udie
nce
conte
xt
refu
atat
ion
just
ific
atio
n
word
choic
e
languag
e
tone
dis
rupti
ng t
he
c
mult
iple
soci
o p
oli
tica
l
take
acti
on
over
all
counte
r a
reas
on
suuport
ing a
.
reas
on
dis
rupti
ng th
e
mult
iple
soci
opoli
tica
l
takin
g a
ctio
n
144
Appendix I: A Sample of the Performance of Student 13 according to Critical Reading Discourse Framework
wee
ks
tex
ts
Interpretive Discourse Evaluative Discourse Reactionary Discourse ar
gum
ent
evid
ence
purp
ose
hid
den
agen
da
targ
et a
udie
nce
conte
xt
refu
atat
ion
just
ific
atio
n
word
choic
e
languag
e
tone
dis
rupti
ng t
he
c
mult
iple
soci
o p
oli
tica
l
take
acti
on
over
all
counte
r a
reas
on
suuport
ing a
.
reas
on
dis
rupti
ng th
e
mult
iple
soci
opoli
tica
l
takin
g a
ctio
n
3
133
+
+
+
+
-
-
-
-
15
153
+
+
+
+
-
13
20
211
+
+
--
+
+
+
+
+
25
242
+
+
+
+
+
+
_
_
+
+
+
29
253
+
_
+
+
+
145
Appendix J: The Scores of the Students’ Performances on Critical Reading Discourse Framework
Interpretive discourse
Evaluative discourse
Reactionary discourse
argum
ent
evid
ence
purp
ose
hid
den
a.
targ
et
conte
xt
refu
tata
tion
just
ific
atio
n
word
choic
e
languag
e
tone
dis
rupti
ng t
mult
iple
soci
o p
.
take
acti
on
over
all
eval
uat
ion
counte
r a
.
reas
on
support
ing
reas
on
dis
rupti
ng
mult
iple
soci
o p
.
take
acti
on
Fal
l
ou
t of
54
entr
ies)
54 40 6 0 1 3 9 19 5 7 2 1 0 0 0 11 13 13 27 19 2 10 1 5
Per
centa
ge
%
100
%
75
%
11
%
0
%
1
%
5
%
16
%
33
%
9
%
12
%
5
%
1
%
0
%
0
%
0
%
20
%
24
%
24
%
50
%
40
%
3
%
18
%
0
%
12
Sp
ring
ou
t of
81
entr
ies)
75 69 33 3 6 11 33 43 5 9 8 1 2 0 0 14 38 39 56 52 1 24 5 16
Per
cen
ta
ge
%
92
%
85
%
40
%
1
%
7
%
13
%
40
%
53
%
6
%
11
%
9
%
1
%
2
%
0
%
0
%
17
%
46
%
46
%
69
%
64
%
1
%
29
%
6
%
19
146
APPENDIX K : The Content of Extensive Reading Pack in the Fall and Spring Terms
WEEK 1
1.1.1 The Magic of the Family Meal
1.1.2.The Most Important Day
1.1.3.No Mercy
1.1.4.Childhood
1.1.5.Papa, The Philosopher
1.1.6.Beauty:When The Other Dancer is The Self
WEEK 2
1.2.1 Overcoming Sex: Can Men and Women be
Friends?
1.2.2The Familymoon
1.2.3.Show me the Way to Go Home
1.2.4.At Home with Mamma
1.2.5.You can’t be too clean
1.2.6.A Tale of Two Quagmires
1.2.7. Not the Queen’s English
1.2.8. University Cracks Down on Plagiarism
1.2.9.PowerPhrases: The Key to Winning Respect
WEEK 3
1.3.1 Why We Crave Horror Movies
1.3.2. Stuck on the Couch
1.3.3Supersize me:It’s time to Stop Blaming Fat
People for their size
1.3.4.Condemn the Crime, Not the Person
1.3.5.Shame is worth try
WEEK 4
1.4.1.The Story of an Hour
1.4.2.The Corner Store
1.4.3.Young Love
WEEK 5
1.5.1 The Principles of Poor Writing
1.5.2.Becoming a Writer
1.5.3. Let’s Think Outside the Box of Bad Cliches
1.5.4.What’s in a Name?
1.5.5.Friends, Good Friends__ Such Good Friends
1.5.6.Doubts about Doublespeak
WEEK 6
1.6.1 How to Get the Most of Yourself
1.6.2. Of the Self
1.6.3.The Deadliest Sin
1.6.4.Google’s Book Battle
1.6.5.The People’s Encyclopedia
WEEK 7
1.7.1 In defense of Dangerous Side
1.7.2The Declaration of Independence
1.7.3. I have a Dream
WEEK 8
1.8.1 What is Crime?
1.8.2. The Company Man
1.8.3. A Nincompoop
1.8.4. Some Lessons from the Assembly Line
1.8.5. A Hanging
147
FLE 136 READING PACK SPRING 2010-2011
IN-CLASS READING MATERIALS
0.1.The Galling Rise of English
0.2. Sex,Sighs and Conversation:Why
Men and Women Can’t Communicate
0.3.School is Bad for Children---
CLASS DISCUSSION
0.4.The Teacher Who Changed My
Life---CLASS DISCUSSION
05.It’s Rich Man World
0.6 The Media : Voices of the
Powerful
EXTRA COURSE MATERIALS
JOURNAL WRITING
WEEK 1
2.1.1 Digital Democracy in Turkey
2.1.2How the War of Words was won
in Cairo
2.1.3.Georgia Pushes English in Place
of Russian
2.1.4.Q&A:Armenian Genocide
Dispute
2.1.5.Interview:West “minority in
writing”: Turkish Nobel Prize
Laureate
2.1.6.Top 10 Books of 2010
2.1.7.A Life Defined by Losses and
Delights
2.1.8.My Outing
WEEK 2
2.2.1. Turkey’s Religious-Secular
Divide
2.2.2Teen Texting Soars; Will Social
Skills Suffer?
2.2.3.Keep Your Brain Young: Read,
Be Lingual, Drink Coffee
2.2.4.What Every Yale Freshman
Should Know
2.2.5. “Creating the Story Together”:
An Exclusive Interview with Elif
Şafak
2.2.6. Some thoughts About Abortion
2.2.7. On Kids and Couples
2.2.8.Living with My VCR
2.2.9. The Plot Against People
WEEK 3
2.3.1. Beyond Gay Marriage
2.3.2.In Search of Bruce Lee’s Grave
2.3.3.A Brother’s Murder
2.3.4. Sex Roles
2.3.5.The Rage to Know
2.3.6.How the Web Destroys the
Quality of Stıdents’ Research Papers
2.3.7. American Values and
Assumptions
148
WEEK 4
2.4.1. Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
2.4.2.Someone is Stealing Your Life
2.4.3.Propaganda Techniques in
Today’s Advertising
2.4.4. Students Shall Not Download.
Yeah, Sure.
2.4.5.We’ve Got Mail-Always
WEEK 5
2.5.1. Human Rights in the New
Millenium
2.5.2. Documents Confirm U.S Plans
Against Venezuela
2.5.3.Is Turkey a Model for the Arab
World?
2.5.4. Anxiety: Challenge by Another
Name
2.5.5. The Ways of Meeting
Oppression
2.5.6.How I Got Smart
2.5.7.Unforgettable Miss Bessie
2.5.8. Burdens of the Modern Beast
WEEK 6
2.6.1. Why and When We Speak
Spanish in Public
2.6.2.Building Baby from the Genes
Up
2.6.3. In Praise of the F Word
2.6.4.Need Transplant Donors? Pay
Them.
2.6.5.A Moral Solution to the Organ
Shortage
2.6.6.On Dumpster Diving
2.6.7.Turkey 2010 Progress Report
2.6.8.The Schizophrenic Teacher
2.6.9.Sweet Talking: Food, Language,
and Democracy
149
Appendix M: The First Version of the Critical Reading Discourse Framework
the name
the date
purpose
preview
selective reading
purpose of the writer
audience
context awareness
genre
discourse structure
tone of the writer
word choice
difference of the message
interpret the text
detecting arguments
the evidence
opposing argument
refutations
detecting fallacies
compare the message
evaluate
changes/conform
general view
150
Appendix N: TEZ FOTOKOPİ İZİN FORMU
ENSTİTÜ
Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü
Uygulamalı Matematik Enstitüsü
Enformatik Enstitüsü
Deniz Bilimleri Enstitüsü
YAZARIN Soyadı : Balıkçı Adı : Gözde Bölümü : İngiliz Dili Eğitimi
TEZİN ADI: TAKING A CRITICAL STEP ON THE WAY TO CRITICAL
READING: INVESTIGATION INTO CRITICAL READING DISCOURSE OF
FRESHMAN FLE STUDENTS IN AN ADVANCED READING AND
WRITING COURSE
TEZİN TÜRÜ : Yüksek Lisans Doktora
1. Tezimin tamamı dünya çapında erişime açılsın ve kaynak gösterilmek şartıyla
tezimin bir kısmı veya tamamının fotokopisi alınsın.
2. Tezimin tamamı yalnızca Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi kullancılarının erişimine
açılsın. (Bu seçenekle tezinizin fotokopisi ya da elektronik kopyası Kütüphane
aracılığı ile ODTÜ dışına dağıtılmayacaktır.)
3. Tezim bir (1) yıl süreyle erişime kapalı olsun. (Bu seçenekle tezinizin fotokopisi
ya da elektronik kopyası Kütüphane aracılığı ile ODTÜ dışına dağıtılmayacaktır.)
Yazarın imzası: Tarih: 13.07.2012
×
×
×